Linguistic fallacies

[shmuel]

The following article has a good discussion of lingistic fallacies:

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_language.html

I commonly see the root fallacy and the illegitimate totality transfer on forums such as this. Here is what the article says about illegitimate totality transfer:

That means the unjustified inclusion of all the possible meanings of a word regardless of the limitations of the context. The Amplified Bible is particularly guilty of committing this fallacy. For example in Galatians 3:8 it translates “gospel” as “the good news about Jesus Christ” thus implying (according to one teacher I have heard) that Abraham knew everything about Jesus Christ and His work. In this context the ‘good news’ being announced in advance was the possibility of justification apart from obedience to the Law of Moses and specifically that “all nations will be blessed through you.” When attempting to determine the meaning certain biblical terms, such as sin, righteousness and propitiation appeal is often made to the words non-biblical usage. This can be extremely useful, but the danger of committing illegitimate totality transfer is great.

In all lexical study, it is imperative that the meaning in the present context be given precedence over all other considerations. The fact that a word may be used 99 percent of the time it is found in ancient writings to mean one thing is essentially irrelevant if the context of the biblical passage under study it is used to mean something else. Any author may choose to use even a common word in an unusual way. Thus the final question must always be “How is it used here?” rather than “How does its use elsewhere tell us what it means here?” The latter question is not always entirely useless; it is, however, always a secondary question in lexical analysis to the question of meaning in the immediate context.

S

 

[debi b]

The following article has a good discussion of lingistic fallacies:

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_language.html

The article was written by Robert I Bradshaw

Robert graduated from the University College of North Wales, Bangor, with a degree in Forestry. Following 10 months missionary service in Nepal with TEAR Fund, seconded to the United Mission, he attended Mattersey Hall (Assemblies of God Bible College) were he gained a Cambridge Diploma in Religious Studies. Following this Robert travelled across the Atlantic to Vancouver were he worked for several months with Richmond Pentecostal Tabernacle. He currently works in Surrey as network administrator and webmaster for the Christian Enquiry Agency, the Deo Gloria Trust and Fellowship Finders. His interests are web design, theology, hermeneutics, early church history, origins, writing and research. Robert is an Associate member of both the Evangelical Theological Society and the Tyndale Fellowship and a Council member of the Christian Enquiry Agency and Message.

 

[ShirChadash]

Good to know, Debi. Thanks for pointing it out.

 

[shmuel]

A simple Google search (I suppose a more sophisticated search would turn up even more references.) will reveal that the concern over illegitimate totality transfer is valid. Since the article gives a clear explanation of the fallacy along with an extended example, it does seem a shame to shift from the content of the article to a biography of the author. The shift of attention to the author is itself a type of the genetic fallacy.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html

Circumstantial: A Circumstantial Ad Hominem is one in which some irrelevant personal circumstance surrounding the opponent is offered as evidence against the opponent's position.

The following link is another link that provides clear descriptions of these sorts of linguistic fallacies:

http://instructor.prairie.edu/StevenIbbotson/James/Word%20Study.htm

The lexical fallacy

It has often been thought that word studies will settle almost any theological argument. While this at times may be true, it is not commonly true. The fact of the matter is that words can mean many different things based on the context. Generally differing understandings of passages have some basis in possible meanings of the words used in the passage. These differing meanings also leads to one of the most common errors made in word studies. You have spent hours learning all the various things that a word can mean. If you have done your work carefully it can serve you for years to come. The temptation is want to pour all that you have learned about the meaning of a particular word into each passage where it occurs. This has become known as "illegitimate totality transfer." It was so in vogue that a translation was even made that presents many different options for the meanings of key words. It was called the Amplified Bible. The Amplified Bible can be used to good advantage as long as one realizes that only one of the words written in the text as a translation fits in the context and not all of them.

One lexical scholar has said, “the correct meaning of a term is that which contributes least to the total context.” The meaning of a single term in a passage will not introduce something that is totally foreign to the surrounding context.

The last paragraph is particularly important. It indicates that the context serves to limit the possible meaning of a word, rather than the word introducing a new idea/meaning into the context.

S

 

[rooster]

 

[shmuel]

I believe that it was to question the credentials of Robert I Bradshaw because his degree is in forestry rather than linguistics.

 

[rooster]

I looked through the stuff and i realised why it looked familiar.

A lot of the stuff was discussed in Carson's "Exegetical Fallacies". Nice little book. Decent article too.