exegesis.
Approaching Word and Language Study
Chapter 2 of this study will examine the meaning of the word ἐκκλησία in Greek literature prior to the first century, and throughout this study I will be concerned with the meaning of words. However, ever since Barr’s critique of “certain methods . . . of using linguistic evidence from the Bible,”111 word study has been a precarious enterprise that needs to be undertaken cognizant of recent developments in linguistics and lexical studies.112 In this section, I will briefly outline these developments before outlining my own approach.
I will begin here with the work of Thiselton, as he outlines the concerns of Saussure and Barr and provides a summary of semantics in biblical studies into the 1970s, including the work of Nida on transformations and kernel sentences.113 He summarizes the problems of traditional assumptions about language,114 highlighting the importance of context,115 and the arbitrary nature of grammatical constructions.116 He argues that, whilst context is critical, words do have meaning, and therefore word studies are not without value.117 He also distinguishes between synchronic and diachronic approaches to language study.118
Thiselton’s general approach is similar to that of Cotterell and Turner, whose position can be summarized as follows: “the significance of the words cannot arbitrarily be changed by the individual if his signals are to be correctly perceived by others. On the other hand it is not possible arbitrarily to insist that the significance of the signs shall not change.”119
Cotterell and Turner then make several arguments which are relevant to this study. First, they note the respective places of diachronic and synchronic study of language, and the limits of both.120 Second, in their discussion of the nature of meaning,121 they define discourse meaning (in relation to 1 Corinthians) as “searching for the meaning of what Paul expressed when it is understood as the record of an (admittedly lengthy) contextualized utterance.”122 Using this sense of discourse meaning, this study seeks to examine the discourse meaning of Paul’s letter to churches, in relation to ecclesial solidarity. Third, Cotterell and Turner note the importance of defining relevant “presupposition pools,” to understand the referent of an expression, and therefore its significance;123 in chapter 2, I will be diachronically studying the potential presupposition pool of ἐκκλησία. Fourth, they provide a model for analyzing different senses of a word, emphasizing the importance of synchronic analysis;124 synchronic analysis of the meaning of ἐκκλησία and other key terms is a key component of chapters 3 and following of this study.
More recently, Gene Green has advocated relevance theory as “a framework within which we may understand the way words mean in context.”125 Relevance theory emphasizes the importance of context, and the need for gaps between the meaning of a sentence and an utterance to be filled by the hearer; hearers (or readers) must interpret to understand.126 Furthermore, all concepts are ad hoc, arising for specific purposes at particular times.127 This may appear to lead to linguistic indeterminacy, and the arbitrary change which Cotterell and Turner argue against. However, relevance theory argues that communication is constrained by the principle of relevance: that the communication received is worth processing, and that the addressee will decode the utterance following the path of least effort.128 Green concludes that traditional approaches to word study based on semantic range are inadequate given the ad hoc nature of concepts, and therefore the focus must be on understanding the shared knowledge of writer and first readers, the context.129
Finally, I want to note the insight of sociolinguistics, recognizing that language is used for group definition; shared language can be used to reinforce identity.130 For example, Trebilco argues that early Christ-followers used designation for the other creatively, to define and redefine outsiders and insiders;131 language needs to be understood in its social context.
In the light of these developments in linguistic and lexical theory, my own approach is as follows. First, studying the use of words remains a worthwhile endeavor. Whilst the meaning of words is not fixed, nor is it entirely arbitrary. Meaning is constrained; therefore, it is reasonable to assume that when Paul communicates, he is using words to be understood. Therefore, the referents are understandable, and there is some relationship between meaning in a specific context and meaning elsewhere.
Second, diachronic and synchronic approaches are complementary if carefully handled. This is particularly the case in approaching the meaning of ἐκκλησία because, as has already been noted, the semantic range of this term has been disputed. In seeking to understand Paul’s use of the term, one of the useful lines of investigation is diachronic, recognizing that this provides a context, not a prescriptive semantic range, for understanding Pauline usage.
Third, and most importantly, words must be understood in context. Therefore, this study will focus on contextual interpretation. My purpose is to seek to discover Paul’s intentions from a close examination of the text in context.
Careful word study remains a legitimate endeavor. I will now examine the second methodological consideration here, my general approach to exegesis.
Approach to Exegesis
There is an obvious overlap here between this section and the previous one, as exegesis involves the meaning of words and sentences. However, here I will comment briefly on three other considerations when approaching the Pauline corpus.
First, this study is rhetorical, in that it is concerned with how Paul seeks to persuade his audience. It is a synchronic analysis, concerned with the text itself.132 I am seeking to understand, not critique, Paul’s construction of reality.133 My focus is then on the intentions of the author, insofar as those intentions are revealed by the text, and with sensitivity to how the text would have been understood by its first hearers or readers.134 However, this study is not tied to any particular approach to the rhetoric of the letters,135 but recognizes the letters as letters and speeches.136
Second, in this study I will be examining a number of Pauline metaphors, and therefore it is appropriate to briefly outline my approach to metaphor, an area of significant scholarly interest in recent years, where various approaches have been proposed.
