What do you think?
Rate this book
The Semantics of Biblical Language
Behind the academic and innocently descriptive title of this book is to be found one of the most explosive works of biblical scholarship to be published in the 20th century. Certainly many of those who read it when it first appeared were never the same again, and it signalled the end of what had hitherto been a flourishing literature on biblical theology. In recent years, Barr writes in the Preface, I have come to believe that one of the greatest dangers to sound and adequate interpretation of the Bible comes from the prevailing use of procedure which, while claiming to rest upon a knowledge of the Israelite and Greek ways of thinking, constantly mishandles and distorts the linguistic evidence of the Hebrew and Greek languages as they are used in the Bible. The increasing sense of dependence upon the Bible in the modern church only makes this danger more serious. The fact that these procedures have never to my knowledge been collected, analysed, and criticized in detail was the chief stimulus to my undertaking of this task myself. His conclusions brought much criticism initially, but forty years later they still stand. This book is essential reading for any student of the Bible.
313 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1961
7 people are currently reading
153 people want to read
About the author
James Barr
29 books4 followersJames Barr, FBA, was a Scottish Old Testament scholar. At the University of Oxford, he was the Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of Holy Scripture from 1976 to 1978, and the Regius Professor of Hebrew from 1978 to 1989.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_B...
Librarian Note:
There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_B...
Librarian Note:
There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
April 3, 2018
Docetism is a perennial heresy, and even those who would agree with Barr’s (correct) conclusions, and perhaps even dislike the discipline of biblical theology, would probably find that they, too, practice a form of Docetism. I’ll put my cards on the table and begin with the conclusion. Barr notes, “Thus the isolation of Hebrew from general linguistics tends to heighten the impression of Hebrew….being quite extraordinarily unique in its structure” (Barr 291). Barr’s opponents did theology by word-studies based on the assumption that Hebrew was special. I think the danger today, as noted in the quote above, is that we isolate Hebrew from its Ancient Near Eastern culture.
Semantics: study of signification in language (Barr 1).
The problem with the Greek-Hebrew contrast: there is posited a contrast between “Greek” and “Hebrew” thinking, yet the Biblical Theology guys rightly affirm a unity in the Bible. So how to get around this?
Nonetheless, Barr isn’t criticising Biblical Theology per se, but only faulty methodologies (6).
Contrast of Greek and Hebrew Thought
Barr’s problem is not with “Hebrew vs Greek thought” per se. Rather, he is saying you can’t trace the contrast to the languages.
I admit that it is dangerous to speak of a “Greek worldview,” but if we take the leading Greek thinkers (Plotinus, Plato) we will see that they are antithetical to the biblical model. We have to be careful in not placing the antithesis at the level of word-studies. You can find anti-biblical, anti-creational elements all over Plato, Aristotle, and Plotinus. Explode those.
Granted, claims about “the Hebrew psychology” are silly, but we don’t need to go there.
Barr’s challenge: are there linguistic phenomena that can be tested to such claims (23)? Remember, Barr isn’t saying there is no biblical mindset, pace some of his defenders; rather, he is saying you can’t trace that to the magical verbal roots or something.
Dangers in Interpretation
Root word fallacy (101ff): Hebrew words often have three root consonants. Therefore, the meaning of the word is by finding its root. Barr counters by noting that bread (lhm) and war (mlhama) have the same root. Therefore, bread and war have the same semantic domain! Indeed, many scholars think etymology is worthless. Do you need a quick refutation of Heidegger? Heidegger says truth (alethia) means unconcealment, since lethos means forgetfulness and the alpha-privative negates that. It’s the same fallacy.
Illegitimate totality transfer: we all know that a word can have multiple shades of meaning. Therefore, per this fallacy, any time a word is used, all of the nuances are overloaded into that meaning!
Illegitimate identity transfer: similar to above. When we read a word’s other meaning into this usage. The Hebrew dabar can mean both word and thing. And since an event is a thing, every time we read of dabar Yahweh, we can read of the revelation event of Yahweh!
The book has a long chapter on the fallacies in Kittel’s theological dictionary. I won’t spend time on it simply because no one uses Kittel anymore.
Semantics: study of signification in language (Barr 1).
The problem with the Greek-Hebrew contrast: there is posited a contrast between “Greek” and “Hebrew” thinking, yet the Biblical Theology guys rightly affirm a unity in the Bible. So how to get around this?
Nonetheless, Barr isn’t criticising Biblical Theology per se, but only faulty methodologies (6).
Contrast of Greek and Hebrew Thought
Barr’s problem is not with “Hebrew vs Greek thought” per se. Rather, he is saying you can’t trace the contrast to the languages.
I admit that it is dangerous to speak of a “Greek worldview,” but if we take the leading Greek thinkers (Plotinus, Plato) we will see that they are antithetical to the biblical model. We have to be careful in not placing the antithesis at the level of word-studies. You can find anti-biblical, anti-creational elements all over Plato, Aristotle, and Plotinus. Explode those.
Granted, claims about “the Hebrew psychology” are silly, but we don’t need to go there.
Barr’s challenge: are there linguistic phenomena that can be tested to such claims (23)? Remember, Barr isn’t saying there is no biblical mindset, pace some of his defenders; rather, he is saying you can’t trace that to the magical verbal roots or something.
Dangers in Interpretation
Root word fallacy (101ff): Hebrew words often have three root consonants. Therefore, the meaning of the word is by finding its root. Barr counters by noting that bread (lhm) and war (mlhama) have the same root. Therefore, bread and war have the same semantic domain! Indeed, many scholars think etymology is worthless. Do you need a quick refutation of Heidegger? Heidegger says truth (alethia) means unconcealment, since lethos means forgetfulness and the alpha-privative negates that. It’s the same fallacy.
Illegitimate totality transfer: we all know that a word can have multiple shades of meaning. Therefore, per this fallacy, any time a word is used, all of the nuances are overloaded into that meaning!
Illegitimate identity transfer: similar to above. When we read a word’s other meaning into this usage. The Hebrew dabar can mean both word and thing. And since an event is a thing, every time we read of dabar Yahweh, we can read of the revelation event of Yahweh!
The book has a long chapter on the fallacies in Kittel’s theological dictionary. I won’t spend time on it simply because no one uses Kittel anymore.
February 20, 2019
Two big takeaways: Barr *really* didn't like T.F. Torrence or G. Kittel, and Barr was a radical linguistic pragmatist.
Read
July 24, 2011After this devastating review of TDNT, not only did they re-issue revised editions, but biblical scholars began to pay attention to linguistics.
February 13, 2018
I remember starting my first masters degree, and having a PhD student at the time tell me that this was the most important book on biblical exegesis he's ever read. My masters adviser then made me read it as part of my second masters, and now recently I've gone back through many of the points as I'm writing my own PhD work, and the more time that passes the more I come to agree with the seminal importance of Barr's principle arguments here. It's important to note that Barr wanted pastors to understand these issues as much as scholars, as modern pulpits are dominated by some of the issues of misguided exegesis that he points out.
The main issues are simple, though the book is not. First, Barr goes to great lengths to point out that language does not always correlate to mentality. So, when the Hebrew language has a nuance that Greek does not, such as the way the two languages describe physiology such as body and mind etc, this is not, despite what preachers often maintain, an example of Hebrews thinking one way about body/mind and Greeks thinking another. It's nothing more than an example of the limitations and uses of various languages. Second, etymology is often a terrible indicator of the meaning of a word. Barr provides a number of examples to prove the point. And third, there is a difference between the meaning and use of a word and the way a word functions in the development of "concept history." In other words, "justification" MIGHT be a specific concept, but it's also a word that means multiple things, and exegetes/preachers rarely understand the difference between a word and its function from the possibility that the word represents the history of a concept. So, for example, people studying the word "justification" might try to fit all passages into the theology of the concept, despite the fact that an author did not have the concept in mind, but only the use of the word in a given context. This leads to the fourth issue - words can carry meaning, but meaning is best found through usage in sentences rather than from words themselves.
As Barr sees it, these issues led to all sorts of badly written books and articles, and quite a few terribly exegeted sermons. His book led to a rethink not only of how biblical theology was done afterwards, but even the very nature of the way we construct word lexicons. The book has been highly influential.
My only critique of the book is its accessibility. Barr goes after exegetes, but also has a lot to say about application for the church, and I do not know a single pastor that could get through the linguistic jargon of this book and understand their own exegetical method in light of Barr's critiques. This is sad, because Barr is right about much of what he said. Scholars have benefited greatly, but the book requires some cultural translation for the church to benefit.
The main issues are simple, though the book is not. First, Barr goes to great lengths to point out that language does not always correlate to mentality. So, when the Hebrew language has a nuance that Greek does not, such as the way the two languages describe physiology such as body and mind etc, this is not, despite what preachers often maintain, an example of Hebrews thinking one way about body/mind and Greeks thinking another. It's nothing more than an example of the limitations and uses of various languages. Second, etymology is often a terrible indicator of the meaning of a word. Barr provides a number of examples to prove the point. And third, there is a difference between the meaning and use of a word and the way a word functions in the development of "concept history." In other words, "justification" MIGHT be a specific concept, but it's also a word that means multiple things, and exegetes/preachers rarely understand the difference between a word and its function from the possibility that the word represents the history of a concept. So, for example, people studying the word "justification" might try to fit all passages into the theology of the concept, despite the fact that an author did not have the concept in mind, but only the use of the word in a given context. This leads to the fourth issue - words can carry meaning, but meaning is best found through usage in sentences rather than from words themselves.
As Barr sees it, these issues led to all sorts of badly written books and articles, and quite a few terribly exegeted sermons. His book led to a rethink not only of how biblical theology was done afterwards, but even the very nature of the way we construct word lexicons. The book has been highly influential.
My only critique of the book is its accessibility. Barr goes after exegetes, but also has a lot to say about application for the church, and I do not know a single pastor that could get through the linguistic jargon of this book and understand their own exegetical method in light of Barr's critiques. This is sad, because Barr is right about much of what he said. Scholars have benefited greatly, but the book requires some cultural translation for the church to benefit.
April 26, 2023
3.5 stars. A rather dated paradigm-shaping classic work on biblical languages. Barrs interacts with and critics the "biblical-theology movement" of the 1940s, particularly on their fallacious use of the biblical languages, identifying how theological meanings have been forced onto the texts via etymological association; how grammatical or morphological structures have been used to argue for theological or cultural concepts; and even how all of these exegetical fallacies were committed with the salient problem of inconsistent methodology. On the problem of inconsistent methodology, Barr concedes that he is not a linguist, but demonstrates convincingly that it seems rather convenient to twist the meaning of scripture or to enforce theological concepts onto words based on etymology or grammatical structure, and that many of the inconsistent methodologies adopted by these scholars of the "biblical theology movement" would not even stand the test of modern linguistics.
This is a really laborious book to read through. Firstly, it is rather dated, and the works that Barr is interacting with eludes me. Secondly, one must have quite a strong command of biblical languages and grammar. Thirdly, Barr's sentences are long and he quotes those he critiques extensively, and often one easily loses track of whether he is quoting someone in favour or in disagreement, or whether he is presenting his own views or the views of others. The good news is that there are plenty of modern scholars that continue to build on Barr's contribution and are easier to read and are more updated on the exegesis with the biblical languages, such as Don Carson's "Exegetical Fallacies," or Moises Silva's "Biblical Words and their Meaning" (Barr and F.F. Bruce were Silva's Doktorvater). So on this particular subject, I would recommend Carson and Silva over Barr naturally.
This is a really laborious book to read through. Firstly, it is rather dated, and the works that Barr is interacting with eludes me. Secondly, one must have quite a strong command of biblical languages and grammar. Thirdly, Barr's sentences are long and he quotes those he critiques extensively, and often one easily loses track of whether he is quoting someone in favour or in disagreement, or whether he is presenting his own views or the views of others. The good news is that there are plenty of modern scholars that continue to build on Barr's contribution and are easier to read and are more updated on the exegesis with the biblical languages, such as Don Carson's "Exegetical Fallacies," or Moises Silva's "Biblical Words and their Meaning" (Barr and F.F. Bruce were Silva's Doktorvater). So on this particular subject, I would recommend Carson and Silva over Barr naturally.
November 16, 2024
I'm amazed that I still hear so may linguistic-hermeneutic fallacies so long after the methodology was pretty well criticized by Barr. I'm convinced more than ever that all biblical interpreters should develop a basic understanding of how language works to avoid such fallacies. The book is definitely dated, being now over 60 years old, but it's good to become familiar with a text that is often referenced.
May 29, 2024
A watershed moment in the history of biblical studies. The magnum opus of perhaps the greatest British biblical scholar of all time, Barr's book is widely-known but its arguments scarcely read - and the field continues to be lodged in the same quagmires that he presaged half a century ago.
January 4, 2021
A hard slog....but worth it in the end!
November 4, 2022
Helpful book. A friend forced me to read it in seminary and I was grateful. A little dated now.
Read
March 11, 2025Revolutionary!!!
November 12, 2012
REVIEW AND CRITIQUE Barr, James. The Semantics of Biblical Language. London: Oxford University Press, 1961.
The Semantics of Biblical Language (1961) was the first major contribution of Prof. James Barr, a Scottish Old Testament scholar, who was then the Professor of Old Testament Language, Literature & Theology in Edinburgh University.
His main thesis was to criticize the linguistically flawed arguments, such as arguments based on etymology, or on the false differentiation between Hebrew and Greek thoughts, or the use of word-equivalents in surrounding Semitic languages to supply meanings to unusual Hebrew words in the Old Testament.
His broader agenda was to introduce the principles of descriptive linguistics which believes that the basic semantic unit is not the word but the sentence, and that lexical entries acquire their specific meanings in the context of sentences.
Barr pointed out many examples of the flawed linguistic evidences in the works of his contemporary, particularly the Kittel Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, for a whole chapter of critique of “illegitimate total transfer of meanings” into lexical entries.
Critiques:
Barr is right about the basic semantic unit as sentence, not as word. And he has rightly and boldly corrected the illegitimate transfer of meanings into words beyond their context in the sentences.
What Barr may not have fully explained is the poetic function of the word in the construction of the context. Words do transport meaning beyond the sentence and create embedded meaning to the context for the intentional selection and combination of words in designed sequence. The loading of more than one specific meaning in words is not altogether illegitimate if the selection and combination of the words convey sufficient hints to illuminate the supra-sentence context in discourse.
The use of semantic study in the New Testament cannot confine itself to the realm of descriptive linguistics if we wish to make sense of biblical allusions, metaphors, symbolism, and typology. Then we will miss the inner connection of the text by staring only at the surface of textual linguistics.
The Semantics of Biblical Language (1961) was the first major contribution of Prof. James Barr, a Scottish Old Testament scholar, who was then the Professor of Old Testament Language, Literature & Theology in Edinburgh University.
His main thesis was to criticize the linguistically flawed arguments, such as arguments based on etymology, or on the false differentiation between Hebrew and Greek thoughts, or the use of word-equivalents in surrounding Semitic languages to supply meanings to unusual Hebrew words in the Old Testament.
His broader agenda was to introduce the principles of descriptive linguistics which believes that the basic semantic unit is not the word but the sentence, and that lexical entries acquire their specific meanings in the context of sentences.
Barr pointed out many examples of the flawed linguistic evidences in the works of his contemporary, particularly the Kittel Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, for a whole chapter of critique of “illegitimate total transfer of meanings” into lexical entries.
Critiques:
Barr is right about the basic semantic unit as sentence, not as word. And he has rightly and boldly corrected the illegitimate transfer of meanings into words beyond their context in the sentences.
What Barr may not have fully explained is the poetic function of the word in the construction of the context. Words do transport meaning beyond the sentence and create embedded meaning to the context for the intentional selection and combination of words in designed sequence. The loading of more than one specific meaning in words is not altogether illegitimate if the selection and combination of the words convey sufficient hints to illuminate the supra-sentence context in discourse.
The use of semantic study in the New Testament cannot confine itself to the realm of descriptive linguistics if we wish to make sense of biblical allusions, metaphors, symbolism, and typology. Then we will miss the inner connection of the text by staring only at the surface of textual linguistics.
July 28, 2011
A very witty, very important, and very neglected indictment of how many theologians and biblical scholars (ab)use biblical language. Unfortunately you will still run across the kind of reasoning he criticizes in many commentaries and sermons (not to mention academic work in biblical studies).
His thesis could more or less be boiled down to two or three points: 1) the common distinctions drawn between the Greek mind and the Hebrew mind are hogwash, esp. insofar as they rely on the languages; 2) the basic unit of meaning in language is not the word but words in context; 3) biblical scholars (as well as others) seriously need to get their heads out of the 19th century and take stock of what we have learned about the nature of language and how language works since the rise of modern linguistics.
But imagine that spread out over 300 pages by a witty (and grumpy) Scotsman who is not afraid to take potshots at Karl Barth when he plays fast-and-loose with Hebrew exegesis…
His thesis could more or less be boiled down to two or three points: 1) the common distinctions drawn between the Greek mind and the Hebrew mind are hogwash, esp. insofar as they rely on the languages; 2) the basic unit of meaning in language is not the word but words in context; 3) biblical scholars (as well as others) seriously need to get their heads out of the 19th century and take stock of what we have learned about the nature of language and how language works since the rise of modern linguistics.
But imagine that spread out over 300 pages by a witty (and grumpy) Scotsman who is not afraid to take potshots at Karl Barth when he plays fast-and-loose with Hebrew exegesis…
July 20, 2017
Barr's value lies in his scathing critiques of certain fallacies within theological interpretation of scripture. He is especially critical of Kittel's TDNT or TWNT and his approach to linguistics. Barr is not very accessible for the non specialist and I would probably direct readers towards Carson's Exegetical Fallacies which provides a more comprehensive overview of various issues relating to biblical interpretation including some of Barr's suggestions.
Barr's work is really a “timepiece” and I think in many ways the discipline has improved since then. There are some who still ascribe to the root fallacy and some who still use Kittel, but by and large the mainstream of biblical scholarship seems to have improved.
Barr's work is really a “timepiece” and I think in many ways the discipline has improved since then. There are some who still ascribe to the root fallacy and some who still use Kittel, but by and large the mainstream of biblical scholarship seems to have improved.
November 1, 2015
Twelve years ago I loved looking into the Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek words as I sought to understand particular words/verses, but I was definitely doing it wrong! And yes(!), there is a wrong way to study words!!
This is definitely an important book to read for anyone seeking to understand Theology based on the words/language of the Bible.
Many years have passed since this book was written, so there are more books to read beyond this to help one gain a better understanding on issues discussed in this book. For example, Barr has a very negative view of biblical theology. This is understandable in view of how biblical theology was "practiced" at the time of this writing. But things have definitely changed; biblical theology done right is a great thing!
This is definitely an important book to read for anyone seeking to understand Theology based on the words/language of the Bible.
Many years have passed since this book was written, so there are more books to read beyond this to help one gain a better understanding on issues discussed in this book. For example, Barr has a very negative view of biblical theology. This is understandable in view of how biblical theology was "practiced" at the time of this writing. But things have definitely changed; biblical theology done right is a great thing!
August 22, 2019
3 stars [Linguistics]
Writing: 2.5, Use: 3.25, Truth 3.5
The book is not really centered on general biblical semantics. Instead, it makes several necessary points about semantics, including the negative effects of etymologizing and theological bias. Written in 1961, this book is still extremely relevant today; half of the students in my seminary (seemingly) are caught hook, line, and sinker in some of the linguistic fallacies presented in this book.
Barr's examples go on ad nauseum, however, sometimes spending a dozen or more pages per example. The book isn't written well enough for me to recommend it broadly, but any serious scholar of biblical language ought to be familiar with Barr's fundamental critique, whether he agrees with him or not.
Writing: 2.5, Use: 3.25, Truth 3.5
The book is not really centered on general biblical semantics. Instead, it makes several necessary points about semantics, including the negative effects of etymologizing and theological bias. Written in 1961, this book is still extremely relevant today; half of the students in my seminary (seemingly) are caught hook, line, and sinker in some of the linguistic fallacies presented in this book.
Barr's examples go on ad nauseum, however, sometimes spending a dozen or more pages per example. The book isn't written well enough for me to recommend it broadly, but any serious scholar of biblical language ought to be familiar with Barr's fundamental critique, whether he agrees with him or not.
November 28, 2016
I read this when I was a college student studying linguistics in 1970. I found it difficult at times, but interesting too, and now as years have passed, I feel it is even more pertinent. It is not just for Biblical scholars, but for anyone who is interesting in more accurately interpreting and understanding the Bible.
August 31, 2016
Great book on the abuses and proper way to use the original languages. It warns against the errors that Scholars and preachers still commit to this day
January 25, 2024
Groundbreaking but a tough read.
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews