Would Saussure have agreed with Barr’s challenge to the notion that there is a difference between Greek and Hebraic mentalities evident in the differences between the languages? Barr appeals to Saussure at one or two points in his book ( Semantics ), and his project as a whole is reliant on . . . . Continue Reading »
At a couple of points in his Course , Saussure suggests that the “primary characteristic of the spoken sequence is its linearity.” It is a “chain,” a “line.” I find this questionable, but he makes interesting use of the image: “In itself, it is merely a . . . . Continue Reading »
A “sign” in Saussure’s terminology consists of a signification (a concept or idea) and a signal (the “sound pattern” associated with the idea). He suggests some analogies: “This unified duality has often been compared with that of the human being, comprising body . . . . Continue Reading »
Saussure associates langue with collective social realities; it is the system created by society and existing, almost identically, in every member of a linguisitic community. He associates parole , in turn, with individual expressions within the system. The system is impervious to change: . . . . Continue Reading »
In a JSOT lecture, published in a 1989 issue of JSOT, James Barr probes Brevard Childs’s claim that “a fundamental characteristic of the critical movement was its total commitment to the literal sense of the text.” Not so, Barr argues. On the contrary, the whole impetus behind . . . . Continue Reading »
Saussure says that speakers know almost nothing about the history of the words they speak, and this means that “the linguist who wishes to understand a state must discard all knowledge of everything that produced it and ignore diachrony. He can enter the mind of speakers only by completely . . . . Continue Reading »
John Ciardi writes ( How Does A Poem Mean? ) about poets who delight in hiding away meanings, often etymological, in the words they use: “they do not insist that every reader respond to them; it is enough that such touches delight the writer and are ready to delight the reader who is able to . . . . Continue Reading »
James Barr directs most of his critical and rhetorical power at Kittel, but he’s got some criticisms of Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich too. Specifically, BAG “is too content to give semantic indications which presuppose, and are intelligible only in terms of, a more modern intellectual and . . . . Continue Reading »
James Barr is a famous enemy of “illegitimate totality transfer,” but he freely acknowledges that there’s a proper kind of totality. Using the word “ekklesia,” he lists some NT statements about the church (the church is body of Christ, bride, first installment of . . . . Continue Reading »
In her book on Joachim of Fiore, Marjorie Reeves notes that Joachim insists on diligent study of both testaments as the means for reaching the Spiritual interpretation: “The relationship is clearly a Trinitarian one: in Joachim’s phrase, the Spiritualis intellectus proceeds from both . . . . Continue Reading »
Subscribe
Latest Issue
Support First Things
