>Without extrapolating the Platonic notion of the "real" Ideas versus
>the imperfect, transitory "reflections," let me just say that IMHO NT
>"love" is **particularized** in varying ways via love of principle
>(AGAPH); love of family (FILOSTORGIA); love of friends (FILIA); and
>love of humankind (FILANQRWPIA). We could also include FILARGURIA
>(love of money) and EROS (erotic love), but the principle is the same.
>
>If I were to draw a diagram, love would be the pinnacle. The other
>types of "love" would branch out from the hierarchical concept of
>LOVE. This is not to say that I make no distinctions between AGAPH and
>FILIA. I do, as shown above. It is clear to me, however, that the
>varying Greek words used in the Bible are all describing the same
>concept. Unless context dictates otherwise, AGAPH and FILIA could very
>well be interchangeable. This is clearly demonstrated by a synchronic
>study of AGAPH and FILIA. Overall, I would **not** flatten the
>distinctions between the words, however.
>
Dear Edgar,
The Concise Oxford Theasaurus defines "concept" as idea, notion,
abstraction, conceptualization, conception, hypothesis, theory, image and
view". From your words above, it seems that we in our earlier exchange have
used "concept" somewhat differently. My criticism of Black was solely
related to his use of "concept" in relation to lexical semantics and the
single word, and his use of English words signalling English concepts to
describe Greek concepts. I have for a long time worked with lexical
semantics from the point of view of Bible translation, and when you mention
a diagram encompassing several words with similar sense, I would like to
describe my diagram illustrating communication in a situation of
translation.
As a basis for the diagram are two different "presuppositon pools" (PP),
the one belonging to native Greeks in NT times and the other belonging to
English-speaking people today. Taking de Saussure and Ogden as a point of
departure I have to account for four words; "word", "concept", "reference",
and "meaning". I have experimented with a trapezium to illustrate the
relationships, but find two triangles as a better figure. In the triangle
representing the original PP, "word" is found in the left corner,
"reference" in the right corner and "concept" in the top corner. The "word"
in the left corner is just a signal with no intrinsic meaning, the
"reference" is the thing in the world denoted by the word, and the
"concept" is the mental image being activated when a native Greek heard or
read a particular word.
As far as I know, no research has yielded data suggesting that words are
stored in the mind as phrases or clauses, but the data suggest that each
word is stored in the mind of people with the same PP as a "concept" which
often has fuzzy edges. Because this concept is somewhat (but not much)
fluid, the same word used in different contexts illuminates or makes
visible different parts of the concept. So "concept" used in lexical
semantics has no meaning outside its PP, (therefore can we not use English
words to describe Greek concepts), it cannot be defined because it is only
apprehended by the minds of those sharing the same PP, and the only way to
express it is to say or write the word to which it is exclusively connected.
Going to the triangle illustrating the modern PP, we find "reference" in
its right corner as we did in the triangle illustrating the original PP;
and "reference" in both corners are identical. Whether we call Jesus
MASHIAH, CRISTOS or Christ, the same person is denoted. The principal
difference between the two triangles is that we find "word" (with no
meaning) in the left corner of the original triangle, but we find "meaning"
in the left corner of the modern triangle. This is very important! When I
use "meaning" here, I use in a technical sense in connection with
translation and the modern PP, but "meaning" in any sense is completely
irrelevant in connection with the triangle illustrating the original PP,
because the native Greeks did not need anything else than the "concept" in
their minds (I am speaking of an ideal situation) to understand.
How then can "meaning" be found in the left corner of the modern triangle
when "word", which is void of meaning, is found in the original one? I
define "meaning" in this translational sense as "the minimum number of
English words we need to express the sum of all the impressions a native
Greek would get from the the same word being used in different NT contexts"
(this is very far from the sum total of all glosses for a particular word
found in a lexicon). The one or two or more English words representing the
"meaning" are not necessarily those which should be used in a Bible
translation, but they represent the minimum number of English words
(signalling English concepts) which are needed to create similar concept(s)
in the English mind as the Greek word did in the Greek mind. When we first
have found this one word or the minimum number of English words, they serve
as signals (thus being void of meaning in relation to the modern triangle)
of the concept(s) in the English mind. The "concept(s)" in both triangles
can therefore be very similar or quite different. In some cases can there
be one "concept" in Greek and two or more "concepts" in English.
Let me illustrate the triangles by the word AIWN. The letters are found in
the left corner of the triangle and the concept at the top is undefinable
because it existed in the minds of the Greeks who are all dead. But how can
we find its "meaning", in order to create a modern triangle?
BAGD lists four principal senses (1) "very long time", "eternity", (2) "a
segment of time, age", (3) "the world as a spatial concept", and (4) "the
Aeon as a person". We see immediately that the sum total of these four
senses is not identical with "meaning" because (4) is not found in the
Bible at all. But what about the three others? Do they together constitute
the "meaning"? I venture to say that only two English words (or phrases)
are needed to convey the impression a native Greek would get from all the
uses of AIWN in the NT, and none of these correspond exactly to any of the
four senses given in BAGD (although one is quite close to (1)).
Looking at the etymology (!) of the Hebrew equivalent, we find a root `LM,
indicating something which is concealed or hidden. The Hebrew noun `OLAM
could therefore be equivalent to the English "hidden time" or "undefined
time" . An undefined time may or may not be eternal, but in most uses of
`OLAM in the OT is the time not eternal. Because the New World Translation
has been an object of study in connection with my coming book, I will
discuss its solutions which are quite interesting in this case. It
generally uses "time indefinite" as a rendition of `OLAM, and this is a
very fine choice. In the NT, however, is the Greek AIWN in 83 instances
translated by "eternal", "everlasting" or similar words, and only in five
instances is it rendered by "from of old" or "from the indefinite past
(Luke 1:70;John 9:32, Acts 3:21; 15:18; Ephesians 3:9.) . The rendering
"eternal" is in many instances what the context makes visible. God is not
"God of time indefinite" but "eternal God", and Christians do not get "life
to time indefinite", but "eternal life".
In addition to a long time of undefined length, another notion came
gradually to be associated with ī OLAM, namely quality; and it came to be
used for a time period with a particular quality. This is also evident with
the Greek AIWN. The side of AIWN which is made visible here is often
translated by "age". This rendition fits AIWN in many instances but not in
all. TEV reads for instance in Gal 1:4: " In order to set us free from this
present evil age". But how could the Galatians be freed from the present
age when they still were living in the present age? The NWT renders AIWN in
this verse and in 33 other verses by "system of things". The word "thing"
is something a translator will avoid because it is vague and little
specific. And "system of things" is unidiomatic and "wooden", but
semantically speaking is the phrase excellent because in indicates a time
period with a certain order or quality. Thus the "meaning" of AIWN is the
sum of the two uses we have described (a time period of undefined length -
"concealed, indefinite time", and a time period characterised by a certain
order - "system/order of things".
The one word AIWN representing one concept (in the minds of the people)
would in Greek signal both the above uses. In English do we as a minimum
need two words to express this "meaning". Thus there is one concept AIWN in
Greek but two concepts which can be signalled by "time indefinite" and
"order of things" in English. The words "eternal" and "everlasting"
represent two concepts in ENGLISH, but they do not constitute a third and
fourth English concept representing the "meaning" of AIWN (in the left
corner of the modern triangle) because both can be subsumed under "time
indefinite". What is eternal is also indefinite.This shows that "meaning"
neither is identical with the glosses in a lexicon nor with the sum of all
the English words used to translate a Greek word into English.
A quick glimpse at KOSMOS also reveals one concept in Greek but two
concepts in English. Its references are (1) "the whole human family", (2)
"the human family outside the church", (3) "the circumstances surrounding
mankind and into which they are born", (4) in one instance, "adornment",
and (5) in one instance, "the universe". For the Greek mind, the
illumination of one concept by help of the context could point to all these
diverse uses. The English mind (without a verb "to world" (cf KOSMEW))
would need two words signalling two concepts, namely "world" and "adornment.
What I have outlined above is an open system where entropy has decreased,
because it both is ordered and is governed by strict rules. The point of
departure is (when this is what the target group wants) that each Greek
word be rendered by one English word. This is not possible in the majority
of cases, and the two triangles serve as rules how to handle the situations
where word for word translation is impossible. Thus the triangles prevents
the system from an increase of entropy. Black has on the other hand removed
the concepts and the meaning (genrally speaking) from the minds of living
people inside their PP to the interpreter`s sphere of interest, because
there are few or no rules restricting and regulating what he calls
"concepts". This increases the entropy of the system because its order and
regularity is lovered, and it prevents the reader from checking the
translatorīs work.
Regards
Rolf Furuli
Lecturer in Semtitic languages
University of Oslo