Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Jerry:

On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Jerry Shepherd <jshepherd53 AT gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Karl,

 

…

 

You said: "You have done what Ruth would say is confuse action with function.

 

"I already a few times covered how to recognize the difference using the word 'swing' in English, now I’ll give an example from koiné Greek:

 

"The action in παρακαλειν is to call aside. The function is why there is a calling aside, and we find that it is used for instruction, scolding, encouragement, upbraiding, and it’s the context that indicates for which reason the person was called aside. The translator that translates παρακαλειν into English has a problem—English doesn’t have the concept of calling aside for all those purposes. If the translator merely translates the action, that makes no sense in English. So he ends up translating the function, the why the action was taken.

 

"If, on the other hand, the intent of handling the text is merely to read the text with the intent as far as possible 'to get inside the head' of an ancient Greek, the reader will recognize that παρακαλειν does NOT mean to instruct, to scold, to encourage, to upbraid, rather it’s an action that is used to facilitate all these contexts and listing the action is often the shorthand of referring to the reason for the action."

 

Okay, Karl, here's a number of points in response.

 

(1) If Ruth is lurking, hopefully she can clarify, but this distinction you attribute to her between action and function is not one that she made.  That was your formulation in your attempt to capture her thought; she never confirmed this, and probably because it didn't really express what she was trying to say.  She made a distinction between form and function, and your distinction between action and function is not the same thing.

Of course it’s not the same thing! That’s why Ruth made a point of it. 

 

(2) Your suggestion that I made a confusion between action and function is not really correct.  When you use these terms you are the one who is making the confusion, and the confusion at least borders on confusing linguistic and extralinguistic categories.

If you read the whole interchange between me and Ruth, I had not known that there is specific definitions for the terms “form” and ”function” within linguistics. So when I first tried to explain what I am do in lexicography, I used the terms in different ways that linguists do. Ruth corrected me on that.

As a result, I coined a term “action” to emphasize what I think is important to recognize how a lexeme is used, and the way I have done so since I was young and have found useful in all languages I’ve studied.

 

  Furthermore, "action" is not the term to use when trying to when trying to capture the "main" idea of a particular lexeme, because it assumes the lexeme is either a verb or a noun that names an action.  Your distinction does not cover nouns, adjectives, adverbs, etc.

While you are right that it mainly affects verbs and nouns, it also fits adjectives, adverbs, etc. 

 

(3) The proper linguistic distinction to make is not between action and function, but rather between some kind of original "core" or "root" meaning and function/usage in its occurrences in various contexts.  What you are trying to argue is that the original "core" meaning is somehow present in all occurrences of the lexeme.

?????

 

  The problem you have here is that there is not a trained linguist in the entire universe who would hold to that opinion.

This paragraph is a logical fallacy, namely the appeal to popularity. 

 

(4) Your example of παρακαλειν is a case in point.  In fact, interestingly, you have picked up on an example that is used in linguistic textbooks to disprove the very point you are trying to make.  To be sure, the verb is made up of two Greek words that, if translated literally, would mean to "call aside" or "call beside or alongside."  And I believe there are a few places in the NT where that meaning might be present.  But in the grand majority of the verb's occurrences, that meaning is not present.   It simply means, in various contexts, to "ask," "plead," "comfort," "beg," "encourage," etc.  There is no problem for the translators, because, if you were to "get inside the head of an ancient Greek," you would not find them thinking that the word they were using or reading meant to "call aside."  For example, in Matt 8:31, the demons παρακαλειν Jesus to send them into the herd of pigs.  They are not calling Jesus aside.  In Matt 8:34, the people παρακαλειν Jesus to leave their region.  They are not calling Jesus aside.  Lazarus is not "called aside" in Hades in Luke 16:25; he is simply comforted.  Rachel does not refuse to be "called aside" in Matt 2:18; rather, she refuses to be παρακαλειν comforted.  In Acts 19:31, the officials of the province do not send a message to Paul calling him aside, rather they "beg" (παρακαλειν) him not to venture into the theater.   And on and on in passage after passage.

This makes me think you have not read a word I’ve written. Or rather, you have latched on to a word or phrase that is a trigger to your thinking, and have not listened to the whole, rather just stopped listening to make your argument. 

 

This is what Peter Cotterell and Max Turner say in their book, Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation:

 

"However much parakaleo looks as though it should mean 'to call someone alongside to assist' (from para 'alongside' and kaleo 'to call')—and it did once have this sense—in the New Testament period it means simply 'to request', 'to encourage', or 'to cheer up'."

 

It just isn't the case that every time an "ancient Greek" spoke, wrote, read, or heard parakaleo, that they were somehow thinking "to call aside."  I believe that meaning might have been present in some of the passages where parakaleo is perhaps used in the sense of "invite," but, for the grand majority of instances, that idea is not present, either in the text or in their thinking.

 

Incidentally, Cotterell and Turner use this parakaleo example in a section where they are discussing the etymological fallacy.  I know in the past you have denied that you are committing this fallacy; but, in fact, your usage of parakaleo in support of your point is a textbook example of the fallacy.

 

So your Greek example doesn't work for Greek; your English example doesn't work for English.  And there is no reason to believe it would be any different for Hebrew.

Your argument has missed the mark. 

 

Blessings,

 

Jerry

Jerry Shepherd

Taylor Seminary

Edmonton, Alberta

jshepherd53 AT gmail.com

 

Karl W. Randolph.