Learning Greek

Introduction

Since the beginning, God communicated with man through language¹ and in spite of the confounding of language at the Tower of Babel, God continues to communicate with us through language. He inspired the apostles and prophets to leave a written record of their teachings. In the same way that Christ condescended to come to earth to be born in the flesh, the Spirit condescended to be enfleshed in human language in the Holy Scriptures.

God has thus sanctified human language for the purpose of revealing Himself to mankind. Since God has chosen to use language to meet us, we should be diligent and careful in our interpretation of that language He has chosen to use in order that we might see Him as He intended to be seen.

It behooves us, therefore, to understand how language operates and work within the parameters of the medium itself. We should neither extend beyond the language lest we become enthusiasts, adding to God's revelation of Himself, nor should we place artificial strictures on language, lest we fail to fully understand and teach God's Word it in its completeness.

The following pages discuss recent developments in the sciences of linguistics and human cognition as they relate to language. The aim is to determine whether or not these developments can assist the theologian in his task of understanding the scriptures. The primary question to be answered is whether the use of the information gained from these sciences would deny the doctrine of the Inspiration of Scripture.

Science and Faith

Before using the results of scientific pursuits in the realm of theology, it is important to lay out the relationship between science and theology. As a pursuit of fallen man in investigating a fallen world, science can in no way be placed above or on par with faith. That is to say, where there is a conflict between science and faith, the rule of faith supercedes any conclusion of science².

This investigation, however, complicates this relationship since we are proposing to discuss the process of interpretation of the Scriptures which are the rule and norm for faith. We must, therefore, proceed carefully and analyze any method of interpretation proposed by science to assure that the assumptions and results of the method do not conflict with the faith.

In the present instance, we will be using research that is being done with regard to how the human mind functions in the interpretation of language. A number of things commend this research as valid. First, language is an activity of fallen man. Second, God condescended to have His Word recorded as human language and intended it to be understood by us. We believe that the plain meaning of Scripture is ascertained through the human capacity for language not some magical property of God's Word that causes it to understood apart from this human capacity. That is, we believe that it is perspicuous³. Thus we make it accessible by translating it into the vernacular and we work to understand the original languages that God chose to use.

The present investigation seeks to better understand the underlying human capacity for language and how language affects and interacts with the cognitive functions.

The primary purpose is to develop sound methodologies for proper comprehension of language. Because of his sinful nature, man will always seek to push away and hide the reality of God from himself. Because of the simul of Lutheran theology, this is no less true of the believer than the unbeliever. By developing sound hermeneutics, we protect the teachings of scripture and make it possible to “follow the pattern of sound words.”

Postmodernism and Language

In his never ending quest to hide the reality of God from himself, man has begun even to deny the validity of his own scientific pursuits. Postmodernism is a term which has become associated with this latest attempt to run away and hide from God. With the denial of both objective reality and the correspondence theory of truth⁴, mankind has consented to be held in bondage by his own delusions. In this environment, the assertion of the perspicuity of Scripture becomes a license to accept the results of any hermeneutic as a valid interpretation.

Postmodern thinking has already begun redefining the nature of language and the interpretive process so as to divorce text and meaning from the historical situation and the intent of the author.⁵ Such a divorce has serious consequences because it is built on questionable presuppositions. Allowing it to go unchallenged has consequences which are unimaginable.⁶

Christian Response

Instead of capitulating to an understanding of language which will so obviously lead us astray, it is incumbent upon us to investigate, understand and be able to articulate clearly how the language of Scripture is perspicuous and how to arrive at a correct understanding of Scripture based on sound principles of interpretation. Luther lamented what happened when the Greek language disappeared and how it impacted the faith⁷. The present situation is similar. Although it is unlikely that the languages themselves will disappear in the same manner that they once did, the principles of deriving proper meaning from language is being threatened.

As Christians, we cannot accept all of the tenets of postmodern thinking. The Christian world view posits that there is an objective reality and what is true corresponds to that reality. Thus, there is a right and a wrong; a true and a false. For Scripture, this means there is a correct and an incorrect result of the interpretive enterprise.

In the same way that we can accept some but not all postmodern thinking,⁸ we must be cautious not to be blinded by groups such as The Entrevernes Group, The Society of Biblical Literature, Center for Analysis of Religious Discourse (CADIR), and others with a radical view of how semiotics should be applied to the interpretation of Scripture.

Furthermore, simply decrying their methodologies and not providing a corrective poses serious risks for posterity.

Language as Symbolic System

The fact is, all language is symbolic. Thus any interpretative endeavor is an exercise in semiotics. Long before de Saussure promoted the idea of a science of signs, there was a recognition that language was a symbolic system and that the relationship between the mental universe and the symbols used to communicate were arbitrary.⁹ Here we must alert the reader that in saying that the symbols of language are arbitrary we are not saying that meaning is arbitrary.

A Sub-Symbolic Theory of Language

There are some semiotic views of language which take on presuppositions that are antithetical to a Christian interpretation of Scripture and they must be discarded. However, in his own work of translating the Scriptures from Greek into German, Luther did not reject all the work of Erasmus in recovering the Greek language simply because he did not share Erasmus' humanist presuppositions. Luther instead made use of what he could and discarded the rest.

Once we begin to answer the question, “how do we understand language to function?” we must constantly consider the question, “does such an understanding run contrary to the doctrines of the historical Christian faith and specifically the doctrine of inspiration?”

We have already seen that there is general acceptance that language is a system of signification. The following summarizes a description of language, which some may label as “semiotic,” that will serve as the basis for the remaining investigation¹⁰.

This model of language and communication uses a triadic model of the sign¹¹ loosely based on the Semiotic Triangle of Ogden and Richards¹². Under this model, symbols are perceived, then organized based upon their relationships to one another. This organized structure is compared against the structures which already exist in the mind of the subject. When a match is found, the sign has been “defined.” New symbols are added to the mind of the subject by establishing new intersections of relationship among existing symbols¹³.

Cognitive science and Artificial Intelligence research has developed similar “sub-symbolic”¹⁴ understandings of language which construct meaning based on the relationships among symbols. Within this “connectionist” framework, it is possible to explain the work previous cognitive and linguistic researchers such as Noam Chomsky with his Language Acquisition Device without the need to resort to innate structures in the brain to account for the grammatical construction of language¹⁵.

A Constructive Semiotic Hermeneutic

Unlike postmodern semiotic interpreters who begin at the level of “discourse,” and attempt to “deconstruct” the discourse to arrive at meaning based on preconceived “structures”¹⁶, the model under discussion begins with low level symbols in their relationship to “construct” meaning.

In the constructive approach, the relationships are defined by the text itself. This is accomplished in a number of ways. One method is through grammatical construction. For example, in a “Subject Verb Object” sentence, the “Subject” is the actor who performs the “Verb” on the “Object.” Also, the tense of a “verb” can establish a temporal relationship (past, present, future, etc.). In addition to grammatical construction, relationships can be established through words which establish relationship, for example, words such as “before” and “after” and prepositions (“inside”, “outside”, “away from”, “toward”, etc.).

As we have already described, this approach to language causes meaning to be derived from the intersection of relationships among symbols. This has the consequence of removing the distinction between “grammar” and the “lexicon.”¹⁷ In this model, the traditional “lexicon” is not the dyadic association of “meaning” with “sign” but rather the process of definition is a process of matching patterns. When patterns match, there is definition. That sign can then function as a symbol and the mind can examine what else is related to that symbol.

This provides a beginning point for considering a constructive semiotic hermeneutic. Additional work must still be done to examine the ramifications of this theory of language on the interpretive enterprise. However, we must now turn our attention to Scriptural Inspiration.

Scriptural Inspiration

Rather than threatening the concept of scriptural inspiration, a sub-symbolic theory of language actually strengthens the necessity for a strong view of inspiration. If symbols in relationship form meaning, then by changing the symbols or changing the relationship the meaning will change. This is almost axiomatic¹⁸.

If, then, God wills to reveal Himself to us through writings, it is apparent that He must choose both the symbols that will be used as well as their relationships. Since relationship is, in part, tied closely with what we term the grammar of a language, the languages themselves take on great significance to the task of communication.

Given what we have thus far said, we can echo Luther when he says, “For it was not without purpose that God caused his Scriptures to be set down in these two languages alone—the Old Testament in Hebrew, the New in Greek.,” and goes on to say, “And let us be sure of this: we will not long preserve the gospel without the languages.”¹⁹ We can boldy assert, “In short, the Holy Spirit is no fool. He does not busy himself with inconsequential or useless matters. He regarded the languages as so useful and necessary to Christianity that he ofttimes brought them down with him from heaven.^”20

Translation, Manuscripts and Reliability

We no longer posses any of the original manuscripts written by the Apostles or Prophets. However, God, in his providence, preserved copies. We know from modern textual criticism that there are variances in these copies. The question arises as to whether or not we can trust them. After all, from the discussion above, since we have changed the symbols (words) we have thus changed the meaning.

Here, again, we will return to the work of those attempting to replicate the function of language in the world of computers. The work of Risto Miikkulainen points out that a subsymbolic network is extremely resilient to the noise of these minor variations²¹.

It is interesting to note that we can extrapolate the results of Miikkulainen when we consider the issues related to translation.

Translation from one language to another can never completely replicate the pattern of symbols and relations that occur in the original language. But the “holographic property” of a subsymbolic representation allows the data carried by a translation to be sufficient to be resilient even to the “noise” introduced by translation. The redundancy of the themes of scripture, by being repeated using different symbols and relations²², provide additional resilience²³.

Conclusion

The assaults of the devil, the world, and our flesh will continue to conspire against God and His desire that all should come to a true knowledge of Him and trust in the salvation He wrought through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. One primary method is to obscure the record of His work in history, namely the Holy Scriptures. From Satan's first question to Eve, “Did God really say...?” until now, he has attempted to obfuscate, obscure and confuse God's Word to mankind. In the latest assault, that of postmodernism, one method has been by attacking how we approach the operation of language, claiming that text is divorced from the author and the intentions of the author.

In our investigation we have investigated another view of language based in part on cognitive theory and cognitive linguistics, computational sciences like Natural Language Processing, and other research into the operation of language. The goal of this investigation was to ascertain whether or not such a view of scripture was antithetical to the doctrine of Scriptural Interpretation.

The results of this inquiry were not only that such a view is not incompatible with the doctrine of Inspiration, but actually appeared to presuppose it. This clears the way for additional investigation into the appropriateness of this model of language for the interpretation of Scripture.

Works Cited

Bates, Elizabeth and Judith Goodman, “On the Inseparability of Grammar and the Lexicon,” Language and Cognitive Processes, 12:5/6 (1997) pp. 507-584
< http://crl.ucsd.edu/%7Ebates/papers/pdf/bates-goodman-1997.pdf Last Accessed:10-31-2005 >

Cangelosi A & Parisi D (Eds), Simulating the Evolution of Language. London: Springer (2002) Chapter 9 < http://cognitrn.psych.indiana.edu/rgoldsto/courses/concepts/cangelosi2002.pdf Last Accessed 10-31-2005 >

Delorme, Jean, “Orientations of a Literary Semiotics Questioned by the Bible”, Semia 81 (1998):27-61. < http://www.sbl-site.org/Publications/Semeia/Semeia81/02Sem81.pdf Last Accessed10-30-2005)

Geninasca, Jacques Signs and parables: Semiotics and Gospel Texts, Gary Phillips (tr), (Pittsburgh, PA: The Pickwick Press)

Grenz, Stanley, A Primer or Postmodernism, (Grand Rapids, MI, Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company).

Luther, Martin, “To the Councilmen of All Cities in Germany that They Establish and Maintain Christian Schools”, LW 45

Miikkulainen, Risto, “Natural Language Processing with Subsymbolic Neural Networks.” In A. Browne (editor), Neural Network Perspectives on Cognition and Adaptive Robotics, (Bristol, UK; Philadelphia, PA: Institute of Physics Publishing) (1997) pp. 120-139.
< http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/nn/downloads/papers/miikkulainen.perspectives.pdf Last Accessed: 10-31-2005 >

Noth, Winfred, Handbook of Semiotics, (Bloomington and Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University Press, 1990).

Ogden, C.K. and I.A. Richards, The Meaning of Meaning: A Study of The Influence of Language upon Thought and of The Science of Symbolism. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co. Ltd., 1946.

Preus, Robert, The Theology of Post Reformation Lutheranism, Vol 2. (Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House) (1972)

Walker, Michael, “Chiseling Competence: A Connectionist Revision of Chomsky's Language Acquisition Device” (B.A. Thesis, Emory University, 1999)
< http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~mpw7t/walker99.pdf Last Accessed: 10-31-2005 >