Lexical Pragmatics and Hermeneutical Issues in the Translation of Key Terms 27
we have, but the words in that text connect in some way to the thought processes—or cognitive context—of
the originators of that text.
Reference to the cognitive context of the originators of a text is not a claim for the existence of the thought
world of the ancient Hebrew- or Greek-speaking authors as formulated by biblical interpreters in the past.
The misuse of this notion has led to improper caricatures of these ancient cultures and what was possible or
impossible for them to think or say, based on the limitations of their respective languages. To speak of the
cognitive context of a particular speech community is to merely acknowledge that any linguistic expression
is the result of the cognitive activity of the speakers. Cognitive activity and communication are inseparable,
with linguistic expression being one of the primary means of human communication. One important
implication is that the biblical text is the direct product of thought or cognitive activity. Exploring the role
played by this cognitive activity is, then, a legitimate part of interpretation.
One of the consequences of a flat-text approach is that the interpreter is left with little more than the
immediate textual context from which to determine a word’s meaning. In fact, in this approach, context is
primarily viewed as the surrounding text in which the word being studied is found. The primary role of
context, seen from this point of view, is to limit the meanings that could have been in the author’s mind as
he wrote. A word still has all the meanings, and context filters out the meanings which do not fit. As stated
by Cotterell and Turner, “The context of the utterance usually singles out the one sense, which is intended,
from amongst the various senses of which the word is potentially capable” (Cotterell and Turner 1989:175).
A more refined and linguistically informed notion of context has indeed been helpful; the context certainly
does play a significant role in interpretation, but some studies give the impression that context is the only
determining factor in establishing meaning. Yet, exactly what the context is, remains quite vague.
A review of recent exegesis texts reveals this imprecise perspective of context, as exemplified in Erickson’s
A Beginners Guide to New Testament Exegesis: Taking the Fear Out of Critical Method. “In general, the
meaning of a given word in a given context will be the simplest meaningthe least full meaning—
necessary for the word to make sense in that context, except in the case of a pun. That is, we can use the
context to eliminate all possible senses but one for a potentially ambiguous term” (Erickson 2005:107).
But what is this “simplest meaning,” and how does the normal exegete know when he or she has found it?
Is the right meaning always the simplest, least full meaning? Is the “least full meaning” the only meaning
allowed in a given context? If a principle like this is applied consistently, other questions arise. For
example, what happens with New Testament citations of the Old Testament where it just does not seem
reasonable to say that the New Testament author was reading the simplest, least full meaning? How does a
statement like this fit with discussions of sensus plenior?
Unfortunately, when referring to the biblical studies literature to establish word meanings, the exegete finds
a mixed bag. Consider the following from Witherington’s commentary on Galatians:
The two verbs here give a clearer picture of what happened. They suggest a gradual, perhaps even a
reluctant or uneasy withdrawal on the part of Peter. The verb ὑποστέλλω is once again a military or
political term describing a retreat or a retrenchment to an inconspicuous sheltered position (cf.
Polybius 1.16.10; 6.40.14; 7.17.1; cf. Plutarch Demetrius 47,912E). As Betz suggests, “this may mean
that Paul views Peter’s actions as pragmatic, or a tactical maneuver, not one based on convictions.”
(Witherington 1998:154)
In the Greek texts cited above, the verb ὑποστέλλω is undoubtedly found in contexts where the retreat did
take place to “an inconspicuous sheltered position.” But the argument here is that the verb ὑποστέλλω
means “retreat or a retrenchment to an inconspicuous sheltered position.” This “meaning” is not available
from the immediate textual context, but is a type of semantic transfer from other occurrences of the verb.
This is not necessarily illegitimate totality transfer; even so, the commentator’s argument is based on some
level of semantic transfer into the local context of Galatians. It is not uncommon to find this type of
comment in the literature, so what is a translator to do? Some commentators appear to argue that the
immediate context is determinative, while others argue convincingly for rich meanings that come from uses
of the word in other literature. This situation underscores the need to answer the following questions:
How do words mean what they mean?