Will Logos ever make it over the Barr???

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/483085#Comment_483085

Pretty much every book on hermeneutics and exegesis written since 1961 has referenced James Barr's The Semantics of Biblical Language. This book is practically hallowed by Biblical linguists and is considered a watershed. Although I have problems with some of his "hallowed" conclusions, I still want the book and think it is a travesty that it wasn't added to the Logos stable years ago.

Please get this onto PrePub before the year is out. Thanks.

This would be a valuable resource. I suggested it long ago (and not so far away). It would almost appear that Barr is barred. [:(]

Todd Phillips

I went to Amazon to check on the publisher, and I found that Amazon is selling two editions of it by different publishers:

SCM Press: http://www.amazon.com/Semantics-Biblical-Language-James-Barr/dp/0334023238/

Wipf & Stock Publishers: http://www.amazon.com/Semantics-Biblical-Language-James-Barr/dp/1592446922/

This could indicate a tangled rights problem. Logos sells Wipf & Stock books, but nothing from SCM, which is the publisher of the newest edition. A little investigation shows that Westminster John Knox is the distributor of SCM Press books in the United States, and WJK has only recently come back to Logos. With so many publishers involved, I hope Logos can get it straightened out.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/483087#Comment_483087

However, until recently semantics (determining word meaning) was more an art than a science. Johannes Louw (1982:1–4) says that it is only since the 1950s that the study of words and their meaning has come to the forefront of academic concerns (for an excellent historical survey, see Black, 2001:230–52). Moreover, only since the twentieth century has it been truly recognized as a linguistic science in its own right. James Barr’s epochal work The Semantics of Biblical Language (1961) first applied linguistic principles scientifically to biblical study. The results were startling, to say the least. Previously, scholars thought that the meaning of a word could be found in its historical development (the thesis of the first volume on semantics ever published, by Michel Bréal in 1897). We now know how much more complex is the true discovery of word meaning. Moisés Silva mentions the frustration of attempting to cover this field, “a task that cannot be executed in one volume without oversimplifying the material” (1983:9). How much more difficult is it to cover the issue in a single chapter! At the same time Max Turner says that in spite of Barr’s warning, “modern linguistics has had relatively little influence on NT exegesis,” because it is still dominated by the prescientific understanding seen in older commentaries and grammars (1995:147).

Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral : A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, Rev. and expanded, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2006). 82.

The kind of laudatory language shown above is typical of what is commonly attributed to this work of Barr's. I personally find the bandwagon effect to be in play where Barr is concerned--his observations are typically accepted as nearly holy writ. But even so, I am sure he has plenty of observations that are worthy of taking into consideration...if only we had the book available to us in Logos format.

Caleb S.

I'd definitely be interested in this book.

elnwood

[Y]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/483108#Comment_483108

Can we get an update on this resource? I know many Wipf & Stock titles hit PrePub recently...I was quite surprised how little interest I had in those collections, because I knew there were some W&S titles I wanted. Besides this one by Barr (which I want very badly), many of Jacob Neusner's works are on W&S also. Please get this one done!

Thanks.

Nick Steffen

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/529189#Comment_529189

[Y]

Veli Voipio

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/529198#Comment_529198

[Y]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/529236#Comment_529236

As reform iron-workers turned semanticists, there's Barr and pre-Barr.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/529317#Comment_529317

As reform iron-workers turned semanticists, there's Barr and pre-Barr.

What about re-Barr? [;)]

Nick Steffen

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/529359#Comment_529359

What about re-Barr?

Is Barr a repeatable event, George?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/529362#Comment_529362

Only if you screw up the cement pour.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/529372#Comment_529372

Only if you screw up the cement pour.

This is becoming a Barr-Barr-ous discussion. [:)]

Sleiman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/529421#Comment_529421

Only if you screw up the cement pour.

This is becoming a Barr-Barr-ous discussion.

Barrrrrrr mateys, ye just missed the ITLAPD

Veli Voipio

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/529752#Comment_529752

I bought the paperback copy of this book and I am reading it now. I feel it is difficult for me to figure out what he is saying: looks like he just goes around the point, not to the point. Fast links and cross-references are the most useful feature in Logos, but I cannot see Barr's book as a good reference book. Why are other books referencing to such a book, it is like sending readers into a black hole?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/564286#Comment_564286

Veli ... you must be a student, and not yet a scholar. Sending readers into black holes (or more nicely put 'rabbit holes') is simply one of many early techniques taught in scholar-school.

But if you're decently familiar with the vagaries of language (maybe a spouse never understands you), then Barr is more easily understood.

Logos has historically not brought Barr in, since many of his points would invalidate the wholesale use of searches in Bible software.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/564296#Comment_564296

Veli ... you must be a student, and not yet a scholar. Sending readers into black holes (or more nicely put 'rabbit holes') is simply one of many early techniques taught in scholar-school.

But if you're decently familiar with the vagaries of language (maybe a spouse never understands you), then Barr is more easily understood.

Logos has historically not brought Barr in, since many of his points would invalidate the wholesale use of searches in Bible software.

[:D]

abondservant

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/564321#Comment_564321

Certain people seem to have this idea that if they can be confusing enough as they present their point they will be more highly esteemed; more people will attribute intelligence to them. IE If you were to read something everyone else lauds, and were confused by it one might make the natural assumption that they are simply not as smart as the author. When in truth those who laud don't necessarily understand it either; but so as to prevent the perception that they themselves are not as smart as the author and indeed to perpetuate the myth that they are as smart or smarter than you - they lay their worship down on the alter of the authors ego. Thus perpetuating the problem...

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/564329#Comment_564329

Certain people seem to have this idea that if they can be confusing enough as they present their point they will be more highly esteemed; more people will attribute intelligence to them. IE If you were to read something everyone else lauds, and were confused by it one might make the natural assumption that they are simply not as smart as the author. When in truth those who laud don't necessarily understand it either; but so as to prevent the perception that they themselves are not as smart as the author and indeed to perpetuate the myth that they are as smart or smarter than you - they lay their worship down on the alter of the authors ego. Thus perpetuating the problem...

Unfortunately, I think you are correct. On the other hand, I have held for quite a number of years (no more than 38) that if someone can't explain a matter so that a person of average intelligence can understand it, he doesn't really know what he's talking about.

Milford Charles Murray

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/564296#Comment_564296

Veli ... you must be a student, and not yet a scholar. Sending readers into black holes (or more nicely put 'rabbit holes') is simply one of many early techniques taught in scholar-school.

But if you're decently familiar with the vagaries of language (maybe a spouse never understands you), then Barr is more easily understood.

Logos has historically not brought Barr in, since many of his points would invalidate the wholesale use of searches in Bible software.

Peace, Denise! *smile* I'm trying with all my might to understand and comprehend your point ....

However, I am truly having difficulties understanding and really would appreciate some help from you re. this quote from you ... "Logos has historically not brought Barr in, since many of his points would invalidate the wholesale use of searches in Bible software."

Honestly, I can't figure out the meaning of this. Sorry, but I seem to have "brain drain"! Can you enlighten me a wee bit, please!???

Edit: Denise, I was just looking at a Barr quotation from Carson .... Is THIS the kind of search "thingy" that you're talking about??? ... that Logos would not historically bring Barr in ???

The Quote -- "The search for hidden meanings bound up with etymologies becomes even more ludicrous when two words with entirely different meanings share the same etymology. James Barr draws attention to the pair לֶחֶס (leḥem) and מִלְחָמָה (milḥammâ), which mean “bread” and “war” respectively:

It must be regarded as doubtful whether the influence of their common root is of any importance semantically in classical Hebrew in the normal usage of the words. And it would be utterly fanciful to connect the two as mutually suggestive or evocative, as if battles were normally for the sake of bread or bread a necessary provision for battles. Words containing similar sound sequences may of course be deliberately juxtaposed for assonance, but this is a special case and separately recognizable.¹²

Perhaps I should return for a moment to my first three examples. It is arguable that although ἀπόστολος (apostolos, apostle) is cognate with ἀποστέλλω (apostellō, I send), New Testament use of the noun does not center on the meaning the one sent but on “messenger.” Now a messenger is usually sent; but the word messenger also calls to mind the message the person carries, and suggests he represents the one who sent him. In other words, actual usage in the New Testament suggests that ἀπόστολος (apostolos) commonly bears the meaning a special representative or a special messenger rather than “someone sent out.”^{^[1]}" (EndQuote)

¹² Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language, 102.

^{^[1]} Carson, D. A. (1996). Exegetical fallacies (2nd ed., p. 29). Carlisle, U.K.; Grand Rapids, MI: Paternoster; Baker Books.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/564359#Comment_564359

Edit: Denise, I was just looking at a Barr quotation from Carson .... Is THIS the kind of search "thingy" that you're talking about??? ... that Logos would not historically bring Barr in ???

The Quote -- "The search for hidden meanings bound up with etymologies becomes even more ludicrous when two words with entirely different meanings share the same etymology. James Barr draws attention to the pair לֶחֶס (leḥem) and מִלְחָמָה (milḥammâ), which mean “bread” and “war” respectively:

It must be regarded as doubtful whether the influence of their common root is of any importance semantically in classical Hebrew in the normal usage of the words. And it would be utterly fanciful to connect the two as mutually suggestive or evocative, as if battles were normally for the sake of bread or bread a necessary provision for battles. Words containing similar sound sequences may of course be deliberately juxtaposed for assonance, but this is a special case and separately recognizable.¹²

¹² Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language, 102.

^{^[1]} Carson, D. A. (1996). Exegetical fallacies (2nd ed., p. 29). Carlisle, U.K.; Grand Rapids, MI: Paternoster; Baker Books.

Hi Milford...I'm not exactly sure if your example speaks to Denise's specific claim, but it is precisely one of the examples, in my opinion, of why Barr thought too much of himself and is generally too well thought of by others. His stance of "etymology is nearly worthless" (being focused perhaps most forcefully in his disdain for "root studies") should have made him a laughing stock rather than a lionized, virtually canonized figure. Most people read that section that Carson quoted from Barr's book (per the references above) and respond by clicking their heels with glee--"Lookie, lookie! Barr has stuck a pin in in the bloated, misguided, ages-old concept of root studies!"--and they conclude he has thereby identified for us and demonstrated the "root fallacy"

Baloney.

As I pointed out over a year ago in the quote below, Barr's condescending "smoking gun" of supposed "root fallacy failure" is, in point of fact, the site where his reputation took an immediate and instantaneous nose-dive, even if his face-plant wasn't immediately recognized by himself or his contemporaries.

The paragraphs between the [I] are from my earlier post about Carson and Barr:

[I][I]

[In the post below, quoted text paragraphs begin with ***.]

Just bought and finished Carson's Exegetical Fallacies. Been wanting this for a long time since I was certain that it would contain many fallacies...not the ones Carson identifies, but the ones he perpetrates. Let me caution readers about "bad medicine". I'm not imputing bad motives to Carson, but one of the fallacies he neglected to mention is the "Fallacy fallacy". This occurs when people identify something as a fallacy when in fact it is nothing of the sort. The Fallacy fallacy is often a permutation of several of the fallacies Carson identifies, not the least being "The Cavalier Dismissal".

...

Carson immediately rolls into this gem of "Fallacy fallacy" generation:

*** The search for hidden meanings bound up with etymologies becomes even more ludicrous when two words with entirely different meanings share the same etymology. James Barr draws attention to the pair [sic] לֶחֶס (leḥem) and מִלְחָמָה (milḥammâ), which mean "bread" and "war" respectively:

*** It must be regarded as doubtful whether the influence of their common root is of any importance semantically in classical Hebrew in the normal usage of the words. And it would be utterly fanciful to connect the two as mutually suggestive or evocative, as if battles were normally for the sake of bread or bread a necessary provision for battles. Words containing similar sound sequences may of course be deliberately juxtaposed for assonance, but this is a special case and separately recognizable.

[Attention: Let us ignore or annul Jdg. 8:4-6, since we wouldn't want to consider annulling Barr's sage words.]

In the Etymological Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew, Matityahu Clark identifies the ל ח ם root as meaning "struggle for existence". No doubt he has Gen. 3:17-19 in mind, particularly "by the sweat of your face you will eat bread', in addition to the idea of fighting enemies for survival. Very interesting. What is even more interesting is that the connection between the two root-sharing words Barr mentions is even more explicit than just that. But "explicit" apparently isn't sufficient for those (such as Vine, et. al. below) who, in the 'battle" against fallacies, feed (pun intended) on bursting so-called "folk etymologies".

*** In folk etymology, lacham is often connected with lechem, the Hebrew term for “bread,” on the contention that wars are fought for bread. There is, however, no good basis for such etymology. Vine, W. E., Unger, M. F., & White, W. (1996). Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (1:81). Nashville: T. Nelson.

Interestingly, Matityahu Clark references Gen. 14:2 as an example of the root referring to "fighting". But what was the purpose of the attack of the kings of the east against the kings of the valley? Sorry, W. E., but Gen. 14:11 makes it rather clear: "they took all their food supply". Oooops! Awwwwkward!!

Mere coincidence? 2 Sam. 22:38-40 attests otherwise, where war entails consuming the enemy as food/bread. And what about Strong's entry?

3898 לָחַם, לָחַם [lacham /law·kham/] v. A primitive root; TWOT 1104, 1105; GK 4309 and 4310; 177 occurrences; AV translates as “fight” 149 times, “to war” 10 times, “make war” eight times, “eat” five times, “overcome” twice, “devoured” once, “ever” once, and “prevail” once. 1 to fight, do battle, make war. 1a (Qal) to fight, do battle. 1b (Niphal) to engage in battle, wage war. 2 (Qal) to eat, use as food.

Sure, some will assert (George, you out there?) that Strong is predictably submitting to the folk etymology and not drawing the necessary distinction that other better lexicons make plain with two separate entries. But are the other lexicons perhaps themselves submitting to the more recent but mistaken "wise one" assertions (such as Barr's and Vines's) that there is no semantic connection when indeed there is? After all, there is more to consider than just what I have presented so far...

In Prov. 4:17, bread is associated with wickedness and violence, with the intention of developing a "your are what you eat" understanding. With these traits imbibed, we can make greater sense out of James 4:1-2, were Jacob associates the source of wars and conflicts within the appetites of mankind. Taken with Gal. 5:15, we see the cummulative result of these two verses: violence imbibed as bread, leads to war comming from the heart of man, which is manifested in attempting to consume one another as though bread.

There is also Jer. 42:14, where war and bread are seen as interlinked.

Not enough? Then how about Exo. 15:3, 7. YHWH is a WARrior (Man of war) and as a result He consumes the enemy. When He isn't personally doing the heavy lifting Himself, He directs Israel to follow his example (Deut. 7:16), where "consuming" the peoples clearly entails warfare. In Jer. 10:25 the enemies of Israel devour and consume him, and in Psa. 53:4-5 the ones who "eat His people as bread" are "encamped" against them, where encamped can mean "to lay siege against". When do people lay siege against others? Ding, ding, ding!!! WHEN THEY ARE AT WAR WITH THEM!

Proof? Ezek. 21:21-22 introduces the King of Babylon as laying seige to Jerusalem; just a few verses later, in Ezek. 21:28-29, we see "a sword" that is "consuming". Hmmmm. And since v. 29 mentions "false visions", let's give the prophets their due...

In view of Am. 7:11-12, where Amos (after giving a war related prophecy) is told to go eat bread and prophesy, we have Mic. 3:5, which is rather summative--if you don't put bread in my mouth, then I declare war. As good as that one is, though, I think this one is the coup de grace, or should I say the coup de lehhem? In Jdg. 7:13-14, a loaf of bread actually fights and wins the war!!

War consumes. Eating consumes. What is consumed is most often referred to as bread. These are all the same Hebrew root.

NO LOGICAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THE ROOTS of "bread" and "war"?? Quite the opposite...and the overwhelmingly ironic thing about Carson's and Barr's blunder is that if they had just bothered to perform one of the anathema and highly ridiculed "root studies" that has been mocked and derided so unmercifully (and I have heard root studies mocked on this forum, as well), then they wouldn't now have the egg of "Fallacy fallacy" all over their faces.

[I][I]

Since I wrote the above, I have noticed a few other relevant Biblical tidbits, such as Jer. 49:37 and Nah. 3:15. The sword is perceived to be a virtual synonym for war by most Bible expositors, and it is shown in these verses as consuming. Ironically, the ROOT of consume is the same as the word assume.

It sorta makes you wonder if Barr and Carson are familiar with the "folk etymology" of the word "assume", because that is precisely what they did in mocking the idea of a viable root-based semantic connection between "war" and "bread" in the Hebrew language. It just "seemed" absurd to them, so of course it must be so...all except for the pesky facts. Of course, Carson is a NT guy, so his blunder is perhaps somewhat less egregious. Barr wasn't, though. He was an OT scholar and served as president of the Society for Old Testament Study. His boondoggle is an example of how an "expert" can go from anal retentive to anal expulsive in one explosive instant. Unfortunately, no one has bothered to clean up his mess...and folks like Carson just haplessly quote the "master" with typical "expert" confidence. Sad, really. Mt. 4:4.

Final comment here: Hebrew is literally DESIGNED from the ground up according to roots, as a book like Edward Horowitz's How the Hebrew Language Grew shows rather clearly.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/564358#Comment_564358

Regardless of what one thinks of Barr, this thread does bring up the issue that most resources in Logos are based on linguistics of the 19th century or before ... there are a handful of exceptions of exceptions such as the clause visualizations. Another reason I take lots of salt with my Logos although I don't know many more modern theory resources to recommend. Any suggestions beyond Barr?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/564394#Comment_564394

Jeff Benner's stuff is worthwhile.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/564396#Comment_564396

Isn't he the mechanical translation guy?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/564403#Comment_564403

I don't recall him using that term, MJ. His primary focus is what he calls Ancient Hebrew, which is the pictographic form that predated and is antecedent to the more often discussed Paleo-Hebrew. He emphasizes that the more commonly known 3-letter roots (which he calls daughter or child roots) are actually built on more ancient two-letter (parent) roots.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/564448#Comment_564448

I don't recall him using that term, MJ. His primary focus is what he calls Ancient Hebrew, which is the pictographic form that predated and is antecedent to the more often discussed Paleo-Hebrew. He emphasizes that the more commonly known 3-letter roots (which he calls daughter or child roots) are actually built on more ancient two-letter (parent) roots.

Are you referring to the proto-Sinaitic inscriptions? I'm not familiar with him although we did some small amount of work on the proto-Sinaitic inscriptions in grad school.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/564359#Comment_564359

A pleasant almost 70F degree day to you Milford. Looks like David got busy with an answer! And MJ's point was good too.

Personally, I've no issue with Barr. And his writing is not atypical (that sounds better than just saying 'typical') of his period. And he was speaking to a thought-process at the time that he believed had run off the road of common sense.

My comment was relative to what happened afterward. Like David mentioned, he's become somewhat of a crutch for later scholars, who want to throw something at an opposing scholar, and 'Barr' is handy. In my mind, it's cheap scholarship (since etymology does periodically explain, and therefore a good scholar would discuss both and not imply his opponent is completely stupid).

But my last line relative to wholesale searches is the modern version of what Barr spoke to. The search engine implies usage across centuries, tremendous geography, and cultures that obviously were not the same. And then with extremely limited sample sizes, implies broad generalizations. And this by individuals that went to scholar-school (or are in scholar-school).

But that said (and this said in some humor), given that God wrote Hebrew per the rabbis circa 1450bc, then my last concern is a misplaced one. I've often wondered if God's finger wrote the paleo-hebrew letters (certainly not the Persian version).

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/564460#Comment_564460

But that said (and this said in some humor), given that God wrote Hebrew per the rabbis circa 1450bc, then my last concern is a misplaced one. I've often wondered if God's finger wrote the paleo-hebrew letters (certainly not the Persian version).

This is the key to understanding Denise, Milford...or at least beginning to get a handle on doing so. Virtually everything she says is intended with some humor. [:)]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/564457#Comment_564457

I don't recall him using that term, MJ. His primary focus is what he calls Ancient Hebrew, which is the pictographic form that predated and is antecedent to the more often discussed Paleo-Hebrew. He emphasizes that the more commonly known 3-letter roots (which he calls daughter or child roots) are actually built on more ancient two-letter (parent) roots.

Are you referring to the proto-Sinaitic inscriptions? I'm not familiar with him although we did some small amount of work on the proto-Sinaitic inscriptions in grad school.

Yes, George.

Milford Charles Murray

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/564460#Comment_564460

A pleasant almost 70F degree day to you Milford. Looks like David got busy with an answer! And MJ's point was good too.

Personally, I've no issue with Barr. And his writing is not atypical (that sounds better than just saying 'typical') of his period. And he was speaking to a thought-process at the time that he believed had run off the road of common sense.

My comment was relative to what happened afterward. Like David mentioned, he's become somewhat of a crutch for later scholars, who want to throw something at an opposing scholar, and 'Barr' is handy. In my mind, it's cheap scholarship (since etymology does periodically explain, and therefore a good scholar would discuss both and not imply his opponent is completely stupid).

But my last line relative to wholesale searches is the modern version of what Barr spoke to. The search engine implies usage across centuries, tremendous geography, and cultures that obviously were not the same. And then with extremely limited sample sizes, implies broad generalizations. And this by individuals that went to scholar-school (or are in scholar-school).

But that said (and this said in some humor), given that God wrote Hebrew per the rabbis circa 1450bc, then my last concern is a misplaced one. I've often wondered if God's finger wrote the paleo-hebrew letters (certainly not the Persian version).

Blessings and Peace, Denise! Thanks for your post which I've found very helpful in my getting a grasp on this subject! I think I see a bit "from where you are coming"! *smile*

The weather here when I got up was 0 degrees Fahrenheit (-18 Celcius!) with a wind of almost 20 miles an hour ...

not very pleasant -- and in 90 minutes I have a dental appointment ............ oh! Woe is me! *smile*

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/564472#Comment_564472

A pleasant almost 70F degree day to you Milford. Looks like David got busy with an answer! And MJ's point was good too.

Personally, I've no issue with Barr. And his writing is not atypical (that sounds better than just saying 'typical') of his period. And he was speaking to a thought-process at the time that he believed had run off the road of common sense.

My comment was relative to what happened afterward. Like David mentioned, he's become somewhat of a crutch for later scholars, who want to throw something at an opposing scholar, and 'Barr' is handy. In my mind, it's cheap scholarship (since etymology does periodically explain, and therefore a good scholar would discuss both and not imply his opponent is completely stupid).

But my last line relative to wholesale searches is the modern version of what Barr spoke to. The search engine implies usage across centuries, tremendous geography, and cultures that obviously were not the same. And then with extremely limited sample sizes, implies broad generalizations. And this by individuals that went to scholar-school (or are in scholar-school).

But that said (and this said in some humor), given that God wrote Hebrew per the rabbis circa 1450bc, then my last concern is a misplaced one. I've often wondered if God's finger wrote the paleo-hebrew letters (certainly not the Persian version).

Blessings and Peace, Denise!                         Thanks for your post which I've found very helpful in my getting a grasp on this subject!               I think I see a bit "from where you are coming"!          *smile*

The weather here when I got up was 0 degrees Fahrenheit (-18 Celcius!)             with a wind of almost 20 miles an hour ...

              not very pleasant -- and in 90 minutes I have a dental appointment ............             oh!   Woe is me!            *smile*

Do you feel warmer now, Milford? [;)] [:D]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/564484#Comment_564484

in 90 minutes I have a dental appointment ............ oh! Woe is me!

Be a man, Milford, refuse the novacaine. [;)]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/564472#Comment_564472

The weather here when I got up was 0 degrees Fahrenheit (-18 Celcius!)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZBFk-Y-4Jo

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/564460#Comment_564460

Personally, I've no issue with Barr. And his writing is not atypical (that sounds better than just saying 'typical') of his period. And he was speaking to a thought-process at the time that he believed had run off the road of common sense.

And if he had just left his comments at, "Sometimes this 'root relationship' stuff can be badly mishandled by the ham-fisted", I wouldn't have a problem with him, because I fully agree that there are many who assume too much in making etymological connections. But he didn't just throw the baby out with the bath water...he stomped it with a jackboot for good (bad?) measure.

But my last line relative to wholesale searches is the modern version of what Barr spoke to. The search engine implies usage across centuries, tremendous geography, and cultures that obviously were not the same. And then with extremely limited sample sizes, implies broad generalizations. And this by individuals that went to scholar-school (or are in scholar-school).

I take your point here, Denise. I have no problem acknowledging that decontextualization (which I think is your main concern) can result in bad conclusions. But I would caution one thing. Prophecy isn't a genre (like literary critics want us to believe) as far as YHWH is concerned, but is a universal communication methodology with a unique purpose. One of its characteristics, and indeed one of its designed functions, is to require and enforce the utilization of a mindset that is both foreign and counter-intuitive to human thinking. While humans have an innate sense that contextualization (particularly historical, temporal, and spatial) is of supreme importance to good meaning and proper understanding, prophecy deliberately flouts that expectation. It's part of "My ways are far above your ways". Isa. 55:8, 9. All this hand-wringing concern about "what would the original contemporaneous audience have thought?" is hopelessly missing the point. The entire collection of books is focused primarily on one period of time...the time of the end. That's right, not the first coming, for the whole fact/reason there IS a "first" coming points to the ultimate "show"...the showdown when YHWH finally pokes His finger in Satan's eye. Christians (with their typical "it's all about me" mentality focused on their personal salvation) don't seem to comprehend that the gospel is a subplot. You see, while YHWH is capable of killing billions of birds with one Stone--and He literally does Jdg. 16:30), His primary emphasis is on one bird in particular: hassaattaan. There is a very real sense in which YHWH's "experiment" with humans is just a subplot to YHWH's primary concern of unmercifully mocking Satan for his betrayal. Of course, He can and does use that drama to create a family for Himself, but He has designed that process to be a resultant reaction to His primary concern, which is the confirmation of His glory through the defeat of His primary and primal adversary. 1 Jn. 3:8.

Returning to my point, prophecy does have its own context...it is just a context that deliberately decontextualizes just about everything that humans hold onto for stability--the time and space of history. YHWH makes perfect sense, but only as long as He and His Word are the ultimate, if not the only measuring stick. Christian apologists who try to match the Bible with science and history are completely missing the point. YHWH has purposefully chosen to create unresolvable dilemmas that conflict with human "common sense", but He doesn't just leave us hanging. There is a clear and elegant logic to what He is doing, but it isn't comprehensible unless one submits to the supremacy of YHWH's chosen logic language: prophecy. Prophecy deliberately ignores and overturns human contexts in favor of YHWH's own.

For that reason, some of the "problems" that you seem to be drawing attention to, those related to historical, temporal, and spatial decontextualizations, which a tool like Logos is able to create literally "without thinking" (which is the key), aren't necessarily bad after all. Almost any tool can be mishandled and misapplied by bumblers, but I am personally convinced that Daniel 12's "it is sealed until the time of the end" refers to the un-human, anti-human, and inhuman decontextualizations that were literally impossible for humans to comprehend until the creation and development of a tool like Logos Bible Software. I told Bob that (more or less) when I met him right after L4 launched, and I am more convinced of that than ever. It is Logos (and its ilk) that allows the "going to and fro" that allows "knowledge to increase". It isn't about planes, trains, and automobiles.

Let me make a quick point about the "not thinking being the key" comment above. I'm not suggesting we need to or should turn off our brains. In fact, our slavish adherence to human contextualization has made us, as a species, the possessors of absurdly stiff and gelatinous brainpower. It is why He says humans generally, and His nominal people in particular, are stupid (Jer. 4:22; Jer. 10:8, 14; Jer. 51:17). We simply don't use our brains in the way we should...in the way He has demanded and expects us to. We need to think more, not less. But the necessity is that we think as He does, and that literally requires that we stop thinking as humans do, and start thinking as He does. Phil. 2:5. The "unthinking tools" that constitute Logos can begin to illuminate that which is unnatural for us because it isn't humanly contextualized. Once one becomes accustomed to this way of perceiving Scripture, it literally opens up--it becomes unsealed.

The point is, as long as decontextualization, from the human perspective, is done in accordance with prophetic recontexualization, it isn't an enemy at all--it becomes the best friend you ever had.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/564513#Comment_564513

literally impossible for humans to comprehend until the creation and development of a tool like Logos Bible Software

Hmmm ... to me the Talmud exhibits considerably finer granularity than Logos permits.[;)] Okay, it does deal with a single manuscript tradition.[:(]

Milford Charles Murray

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/564505#Comment_564505

The weather here when I got up was 0 degrees Fahrenheit (-18 Celcius!)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZBFk-Y-4Jo

Thanks, George! Smiling takes the pain away, eh?! *smile* I guess the weather really socked-in the Southern Eastern Atlantic States also!

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/564577#Comment_564577

I guess the weather really socked-in the Southern Eastern Atlantic States also!

And we Northwesterners get no respect for our fortitude during a long period without any liquid sunshine.

"Liquid sunshine" - the light rain we usually live with much of the year.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/564513#Comment_564513

Actually, David, I was including 'contextualization', more so than the literal consonents. I always grit my teeth when someone says 'you have to look at the context'. My question is always, 'and what would that be?'. But I do appreciate your points.

The best OT examples are in Psalms where the various commentaries appear to be discussing the same text (but who'd of guessed).

But to illustrate the issue of text versus meaning, and I may have noted this earlier, our pastor prints out his sermons even before services. And then the class meets and goes over his sermon in detail the following week.

The major problem arises when the pastor is not there to explain what he said. The classes devolves into mysterious looks, confident assertions, and eventually the 'well, maybe we should ask him'.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/564590#Comment_564590

Bump.

Barr's Semantics of Biblical Language please.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/572805#Comment_572805

Finally!! I just saw this on PrePub and I'm very happy. I'm looking forward to reading this very influential book. You should be, too. Get your bid in so we can be reading this by summer, if not sooner.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/673524#Comment_673524

The packaging seems curious.

My imagination is always quite healthy. On the one hand, the Logos packager felt bad if only Barr's classic would be offerred. But on the other hand, he or she would feel super guilty if Barr's opus to completely destroy fundementalism should go unnoticed (Barr being an ordained minister of the Church of Scotland). So an added volume from 1980 was carefully selected (basically after Barr was receiving heavyy in-coming). Thence, the Logos packager wrote a great apologetic as to why an evangelical in their right mind would contribute a penny to the pre-pub.

It's always funny how Logos.com offers a garden of Eden of books destroying 'YHWH'. But specific authors draw fire that is just too brutal for Logos to stomach. Ehrman comes to mind as well.

I'm really tempted to throw down $435 for the collected writings. http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Interpretation-Collected-Essays-Volumes/dp/0198261926/

In my view (being to the right of the fundementalists and to the far right of the evangelicals), Barr described a bad turn in Christianity during the period of the public embracing the horseless carriage (an invention sure to soon destroy western civilization as we now know it).

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/673524#Comment_673524

Let's get some more bids on this.