picking the right sense for an original language word given the context

Some backdrop first before I can bring up my question…I am a lay person. Here is the situation I am facing. Take the famous verse Jer 29:11 (ESV): 11 For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope. I was told in Church circles that the Hebrew word “Welfare” is most often translated as “peace” and, by extrapolation, "peace" might be better than "welfare". I know that, even as a lay man, such an interpretation principle is wrong. Let’s say I’m reading a book on running and the author of the book is also running for the office as governor, we could find the word “run” has the sense of physical act of running in all instances but one (where the sense is running for governor). But that doesn’t mean that we should interpret the word “run” used in the context of running for the governor’s office as a physical act of running.

Given the context of the verse ("not for evil"), I feel that the word “welfare” cannot be translated as peace in Jer 29:11 because I don’t think peace is the contrast to “evil” given in the verse. It seems “wellbeing” is the better sense given the context.

Is there a way to click on a word in the English translation of the Bible, see the various senses for the underlying original language word, and see which one was picked by the various translators? It seems that the Lexham Analytical Lexicon of the Hebrew Bible does the job that I am looking for.

If I am wrong about my understanding, please let me know what alternate resources I should look at.
If I am right, then if I am in the NT, do I simply jump to Lexham Analytical Lexicon of the Greek NT?
Let me know of any caveats I should keep in mind when I am scanning the various senses to figure out the right one.
Do I learn anything extra by looking at the Lexham Research Lexicon of the Hebrew Bible and the DBL Hebrew (and the Greek counterparts) or any other resource to help me in my pursuit?

May be I am over my head and I can understand if you wanna say that.

Thank you all.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

MJ. Smith

Is there a way to click on a word in the English translation of the Bible, see the various senses for the underlying original language word,

This is one piece of your puzzle:

Depending upon your priorities, the Lexham lexicons may be accessible through the Look up function.

Newman, Barclay M., Jr., and Philip C. Stine. A Handbook on Jeremiah. UBS Handbook Series. New York: United Bible Societies, 2003. directs you to:

[quote]

Seek the welfare of is translated “Work for the good of” by NJB. The word rendered welfare is the frequently used word generally rendered “peace.” It carries the sense of prosperity, peace, and well-being (see “it shall be well with you” in 4:10).
In place of the city (that is, Babylon), the Septuagint has “country” (TOB note). TEV takes the noun in a distributive sense, “cities.”
In its welfare you will find your welfare translates the Hebrew “in its peace will be to you peace,” which TEV renders “if they are prosperous, you will be prosperous too.” TOB has “its prosperity is the condition of your own” and GECL “if it is good for them, it will also be good for you.”

Barclay M. Newman Jr. and Philip C. Stine, A Handbook on Jeremiah, UBS Handbook Series (New York: United Bible Societies, 2003), 590.

MJ. Smith

Is there a way to click on a word in the English translation of the Bible, see the various senses for the underlying original language word,

This is one piece of your puzzle:

Note that depending on your priorities, the Look up can give a direct link to the Lexham Research Lexicon.

Newman, Barclay M., Jr., and Philip C. Stine. A Handbook on Jeremiah. UBS Handbook Series. New York: United Bible Societies, 2003. directs you to:

[quote]

Barclay M. Newman Jr. and Philip C. Stine, A Handbook on Jeremiah, UBS Handbook Series (New York: United Bible Societies, 2003), 590.

1Cor10 31

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1252501#Comment_1252501

Thank you very much, MJ, for pointing me to the Word study, the Information panel, and the UBS.

Sorry for the inordinate delay in getting back. I’ve been trying to understand how to use the various resources in my library. With no seminary background, nor surprisingly, I went around in circles. Went and did all--except grammar parts--of LA181 course (Learn to Use Biblical Greek by Danny Zacharias) and LA182 (Learn to use Biblical Hebrew by Michael Heiser). I think I have a hang of how all the lexical resources I have can help me. Still, I have a bunch of clarifying questions.

First, let me take the Word study you suggested. If my understanding is correct, the translation ring gives the various English words used in the Bible of choice for the underlying original language lemma (“gloss” is the technical term if my understanding is correct). But these are not necessarily the various senses/semantic meaning of the underlying Lemma. Am I correct in my understanding?

Second, the Information tool you suggested. It is helpful because I can see if other translators are using a different sense compared to the people involved with my preferred Bible. But the problem is: whom to trust in case of differences?

Third, the UBS Handbooks you suggested…This is also helpful – slightly more helpful than the Info tool as it gives some background for translation choices of various Bibles.

As I was scanning your suggested Word study output, I noticed the Senses section, which seems to give the various possible senses of the underlying lemma. This is what I am looking for, though I may not have communicated my needs well. But what it doesn’t tell me is which of the senses is the right one for the word for which I did the Word study, am I right? This is where the Lexham Research Lexicon fits in because it’s organization within each lemma is based on Senses, am I right?

Thank you very much.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1268209#Comment_1268209

First, let me take the Word study you suggested. If my understanding is correct, the translation ring gives the various English words used in the Bible of choice for the underlying original language lemma (“gloss” is the technical term if my understanding is correct). But these are not necessarily the various senses/semantic meaning of the underlying Lemma. Am I correct in my understanding?

Think of a gloss as the short English word/phrase for a Spanish word/phrase as you would find in an old-style Bantam paperback bilingual dictionary. The more precise definition/senses of the Spanish must be in Spanish not in translation - the real definition tries to pick up both the denotation and connotation. For example, for connotation, did the author of the event on the road to Emmaus expect us to recognize Emmaus as the site of a Maccabean battle? For denotation, both the gloss and the lemma should represent at least one sense of the word.

Second, the Information tool you suggested. It is helpful because I can see if other translators are using a different sense compared to the people involved with my preferred Bible. But the problem is: whom to trust in case of differences?

Now think of the meaning/sense of the gloss in English as one circle and the meaning/sense of the original language as a second circle. What a translator tries to do is pick a word where the English circle and the original language circle have the largest overlap AND include the primary sense for this particular use. Now think of "milk shake" ... if you order a milk shake in Boston and in Seattle you will get different drinks. Translators will choose different senses based on their audience, the aspect of the meaning that they think best expresses the thought flow of the passage, etc. Don't count angels dancing on a pin. THERE IS NO ONE RIGHT ANSWER. In the late 1960's the best translation of the cryptic Chinese I Ching was done by someone who didn't read Chinese at all. What he did was look at translations in multiple European languages to find the meaning to which they all appeared to be pointing.

I noticed the Senses section, which seems to give the various possible senses of the underlying lemma. This is what I am looking for, though I may not have communicated my needs well. But what it doesn’t tell me is which of the senses is the right one for the word for which I did the Word study, am I right?

It doesn't tell you the "right one" because THERE IS NO ONE RIGHT ANSWER and, as language is always in a state of flux, the best answer in 1710 will have shifted a bit in 1810 may not be the best answer in 1910 is rarely the best answer in 2010

Moral: it is best to read multiple translations, notes on why translations made the choices they made, think about how you use language, and decide what meaning you think is being pointed to. Why how you use language? I hate the translation of the creed that uses the term "consubstantial" because it is not a word people use ... it will always be sectarian mumbo-jumble to the average person in the pew and meaningful only to the theologically trained because they might actually use the word. It may be accurate in the sense that the hypothetical circles have a great overlap ... but it does not convey meaning.

1Cor10 31

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1268237#Comment_1268237

Thank you so much for helping me walk through through responsible interpretation of the Bible. Appreciate it very much. The bilingual dictionary and milkshake analogy helped crystallize my thoughts a lot. Thank you.

Translators will choose different senses based on their audience, the aspect of the meaning that they think best expresses the thought flow of the passage, etc. Don't count angels dancing on a pin. THERE IS NO ONE RIGHT ANSWER.

It doesn't tell you the "right one" because THERE IS NO ONE RIGHT ANSWER and, as language is always in a state of flux, the best answer in 1710 will have shifted a bit in 1810 may not be the best answer in 1910 is rarely the best answer in 2010

I don't know where I read this, but I thought the idea of interpretation starts with treating the books of the Bible as historical books and then try and discern what the author meant to the original recipient of these books (audience). This made sense to me intuitively, not because this principle was written by Fee and Stuart or mentioned by John Piper. This interpretive principle made sense to me because the author had a purpose in writing these books and they didn't know that these books would one day become part of the Scriptures. For example, if I am writing a letter to my daughter, I will be careful to choose my words so that she doesn't misinterpret what I am saying and she gets the exact meaning as I intended. By the same logic, there has to be exactly 1 meaning for what is said in the Bible, which we may or may not be able to decipher given the time gap we have now compared to when these books were written. Of course, after doing this job, we can think of applications and what it means for our Christian walk.

I thought this idea of identifying the correct meaning is where the work of scholars who put together resources like BDAG proves to be invaluable. These folks have taken the pain of reading tremendous amount literature from the same time period as when these Bible books were written so that they can figure out the various possible meanings of a given Greek word used in the Bible. Then given the context of the verses, they determine which of the possible meanings makes the most sense. Yes, there are times when it is hard to attach exactly one meaning, but they do attach the most likely meaning most of the time. (Recently, I remember seeing an example where BDAG mentioned that a given lemma could have 2 possible meanings). Even scholars are likely to be wrong some of the time and that's perfectly ok.

Any thoughts? Happy to hear.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1268359#Comment_1268359

For example, if I am writing a letter to my daughter, I will be careful to choose my words so that she doesn't misinterpret what I am saying and she gets the exact meaning as I intended.

Not analogous assuming both you and your daughter are native English speakers from the same region. For example, how do I convey to someone living in a moist climate the difference between yarrow and Queen Anne's Lace? Same plant but one coveys a desert weed, the other a garden flower - which is why my niece's husband kept uprooting her carefully planted Queen Anne's Lace which in my family has the connotation of a granddaughter' gift to grandmother. There is no way that as a non-native Greek speaker two millennia later are going to have the same ability to understand a word in exactly the same way. Second the idea that a word is used with exactly one meaning is a gross oversimplification - much of word play is based on using multiple meanings at the same time. My favorite is the woman who explained that her sons' cattle ranch was named Focus (sun's rays meet/sons raise meat). Yes, reader-response criticism tries to find what the author meant for the original audience to understand ... but don't overestimate the degree to which this is possible.

These folks have taken the pain of reading tremendous amount literature from the same time period as when these Bible books were written so that they can figure out the various possible meanings of a given Greek word used in the Bible.

Right ... and have you stopped to wonder why in a couple of thousand years they are still working on it?

1Cor10 31

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1268386#Comment_1268386

1Cor10 31">For example, if I am writing a letter to my daughter, I will be careful to choose my words so that she doesn't misinterpret what I am saying and she gets the exact meaning as I intended.

Not analogous assuming both you and your daughter are native English speakers from the same region.

I don't know what I'm missing. Wasn't the Hebrew Bible written by Hebrew authors who wrote it for a Hebrew audience? Similarly, wasn't the Greek NT written by Greek authors who wrote it for a Greek audience? If so, a good author must have intended exactly 1 meaning with his choice of words, isn't it? Importantly, since the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit, who is not lacking in any communicator skills whatsoever, again, 1 intended meaning is a good assumption, I'm thinking.

Second the idea that a word is used with exactly one meaning is a gross oversimplification...but don't overestimate the degree to which this is possible.

I agree that this is difficult but I guess this is why we do our best to get at the 1 meaning.

1Cor10 31">These folks have taken the pain of reading tremendous amount literature from the same time period as when these Bible books were written so that they can figure out the various possible meanings of a given Greek word used in the Bible.

Right ... and have you stopped to wonder why in a couple of thousand years they are still working on it?

First, it is because no research is perfect and that there is always something to improve.

Second, because people must have discovered some new literature surrounding the period when the Bible was written. Let's say before the discovery, there were 2 possible meanings for a lemma based on extra-Biblical literature. Now this new discovery of literature might have given an extra possible meaning, so we now have 3 possible meanings for a lemma. Given this extra meaning, all the occurrences of this lemma in the Bible will have to be reevaluated to see if the meaning assigned to it is still appropriate or not. Maybe, for some of the occurrences of this lemma in the Bible, the 3rd meaning might be the most appropriate. This is how research builds on prior research.

That's all my layman brains can come up with.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1268533#Comment_1268533

Holy Spirit, who is not lacking in any communicator skills whatsoever

In the same way Jesus in being incarnated accepted human limitations, the Holy Spirit by using human language accepts all the limitations of that language. Note we likely disagree as to whether this is a one time or continuous action.

If so, a good author must have intended exactly 1 meaning with his choice of words, isn't it?

In scientific writing this is true. In logic this is true. In most communication this is generally true but not always true. Think of writing for children, the illiterate, second language speakers ... one adjusts the language to match the audience. So a Hebrew priest in Chronicles would use more precise language when speaking to other priests or the King and less precise language when speaking to a widow. We are pretending that we can replicate this difference two millenia later in languages other than the Hebrew of the date of my example. If you believe this is possible, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. We pull the clues together to make our best guess, rank it as better than, less than other best guesses and slowly make progress in the academic understanding of the text. My experience with this: I had a professor who was notoriously difficult to work with - colleagues world-wide would prefer not to partner with him. One term I was stuck as the only student reading a Pali grammar with him and I hit a term that I simply could not figure out ... historical linguistics, etymologies ... everything failed me. I dread the next class in which I would orally translate the passage for him. When I started the sentence with the offending word, I admitted I didn't understand the meaning - I saw him get into his "you stupid fool" posture. As he read the sentence I saw him soften and finally turn to pure joy. He didn't know the answer! He had a new puzzle to work on. He was in a great mood for the rest of the lesson. I learned two lessons (a) even the scholar considered the best in the world in his field admits when he doesn't know something or knows only within some degree of certainty (b) take joy in what you don't know - it makes room to continue to learn.

this is why we do our best to get at the 1 meaning.

Actually, you do it because of the belief that scripture has a single meaning which is a modern Protestant position although the idea that there is a single, primary meaning for much of scripture has a long history. I can't get into this aspect without moving into theological rather than linguistic considerations. I find this position especially ironic when applied to the Old Testament as it is so far from the Hebrew interpretative traditions (watch the logic of interpretation in the Talmud, or Paul's OT interpretations).

Now I will really cross the theological line to show you how far apart our understanding of the purpose of studying scripture is. I do not study scripture in order to get to its "correct meaning". I engage in the activity of trying to find the full, correct meaning(s) in order to engage with God through scripture which builds my relationship with God.

Bmickey

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1268359#Comment_1268359

I thought this idea of identifying the correct meaning is where the work of scholars who put together resources like BDAG proves to be invaluable. These folks have taken the pain of reading tremendous amount literature from the same time period as when these Bible books were written so that they can figure out the various possible meanings of a given Greek word used in the Bible. Then given the context of the verses, they determine which of the possible meanings makes the most sense.

Remember their work is also contains bias toward their own beliefs. You sound as if you are off to a great start. God bless your efforts!

1Cor10 31

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1268553#Comment_1268553

1Cor10 31">
I thought this idea of identifying the correct meaning is where the work of scholars who put together resources like BDAG proves to be invaluable. These folks have taken the pain of reading tremendous amount literature from the same time period as when these Bible books were written so that they can figure out the various possible meanings of a given Greek word used in the Bible. Then given the context of the verses, they determine which of the possible meanings makes the most sense.

Remember their work is also contains bias toward their own beliefs. You sound as if you are off to a great start. God bless your efforts!

Thank you for the reminder.

I'd like to say that I know for sure that I am wrong on some of my beliefs; it is just that I don't know where I am wrong. If I knew where I am wrong, I'll change!

1Cor10 31

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1268546#Comment_1268546

1Cor10 31">Holy Spirit, who is not lacking in any communicator skills whatsoever

In the same way Jesus in being incarnated accepted human limitations, the Holy Spirit by using human language accepts all the limitations of that language. Note we likely disagree as to whether this is a one time or continuous action.

1Cor10 31"> If so, a good author must have intended exactly 1 meaning with his choice of words, isn't it?

In scientific writing this is true. In logic this is true. In most communication this is generally true but not always true. Think of writing for children, the illiterate, second language speakers ... one adjusts the language to match the audience. So a Hebrew priest in Chronicles would use more precise language when speaking to other priests or the King and less precise language when speaking to a widow. We are pretending that we can replicate this difference two millenia later in languages other than the Hebrew of the date of my example.

Apologies for not articulating my views clearly. I start with the assumption that the author intended one - and only one - meaning when he wrote the book for his original audience. That is the most logical assumption to make. So we make all-out effort to get at this singular meaning. All the time, we have to cognizant of the fact that this endeavor is super hard. It might be the case that we cannot conclusively reach this one singular meaning that the author intended. I've seen commentaries kind of lay out several possible meanings and start ruling out one after the other and then end up with 2 possible meanings and no more data to be able to isolate the 1 possible meaning. I am ok with reaching a stalemate like that. In fact, I love such commentaries. Just plain, honest, do-your-best, and don't-insert-unsubstantiated-opinions commentaries.

But what I cannot do is start with the assumption that the author intended multiple meanings to be read into by his audience.

1Cor10 31">this is why we do our best to get at the 1 meaning.

I don't think we are "far apart[in] our understanding of the purpose of studying scripture". I think both of us want to have a relationship with God, but my belief is that the strength of this relationship with God (and the resulting joy) is positively correlated with the degree of the correctness of our view of God. One might think of God as a school principal whose job is to enforce rules (which I believe is a wrong view of God). You can still have a relationship with God, but it is unlikely to be joyous.

I feel like understanding the correct meaning is one of the mechanisms by which we interpret the Bible correctly in order to arrive at a correct view of God. Hence, I value the importance of arriving at the correct meaning.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1268570#Comment_1268570

We may, if fact, be even farther apart than I thought. I prefer to read Scripture as a contemporary love letter. I prefer to know God through experiential relationship rather than by knowing about God. Have you read Is There a Meaning in This Text? | Logos Bible Software? I think you would enjoy it as if defends against views that the text doesn't have a meaning while introducing the usefulness of questioning the assumption it does.

1Cor10 31

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1268571#Comment_1268571

We may, if fact, be even farther apart than I thought. I prefer to read Scripture as a contemporary love letter. I prefer to know God through experiential relationship rather than by knowing about God. Have you read Is There a Meaning in This Text? | Logos Bible Software? I think you would enjoy it as if defends against views that the text doesn't have a meaning while introducing the usefulness of questioning the assumption it does.

Thank you for the book suggestion. Have put it in my Wish list.

To each his own!

If you are wired by God to be predominantly left-brained (me), then you worship God primarily intellectually.

If you are wired by God to be predominantly right-brained, then you worship God primarily emotionally.

If you are wired by God to be left-brained and right-brained (like my daughter), then you worship God both intellectually and emotionally.

There is no one unique way to worship God. God wouldn't have created us differently otherwise.