Michael A. Rudolph, «Beyond Guthrie?: Text-linguistics and New Testament Studies.», Vol. 26 (2013) 27-48
The promise of linguistics for biblical studies has not yet been realized. While the bulk of the biblical, scholarly community has remained aloof and unimpressed, others have pursued this field of study, struggling with unfamiliar and often ill-defined terminology, even as they sought to develop an effective and objective methodology. This paper examines the work of one “eclectic” approach, the “Cohesive Shift Analysis” of George H. Guthrie, acknowledging its contribution, yet also suggesting corrective refinements.
Beyond Guthrie?: Text-linguistics and New Testament Studies 47
5. CONCLUSION
Guthrie has opened the eyes of biblical scholars to the world of
linguistics and what it may offer for their interpretive task. He has
also had a significant impact upon the study of Hebrews, shaping the
current debate. Yet, in a sense, as with any early explorer first stepping
on shore to a new world (i.e., the world of linguistics), the potential for
misunderstanding that new world and for failing to appreciate the depth
of its rich diversity is great. At the same time, like all biblical scholars,
Guthrie may also be thought of as an archaeologist, excavating an illusive
past, carefully sifting through the obscure data of the ancient text. For
him, and a growing number of scholars like him, it is the light of this new,
linguistic world that provides the means to illuminate the distant past.
Yet, linguistics should not be thought of as merely some new magical
tool, performing exegetical tricks for a skeptical audience. It is simply
the study of language, modern or ancient. Specifically, it is the study of
how people and societies use language to communicate meaning. The
application of linguistics to biblical studies will take scholars beyond
the familiar and comfortable realm of sentence-bound grammars to a
new world where terms seem odd and confusing. Is this an interpretive
dead-end? Only by exploring its potential can this be known. One thing,
however, is certain. Until, and unless, scholars reach a level of linguistic
understanding and expertise that achieves a consistency of objectively
verifiable results, skepticism will remain and justifiably so. Time may
serve to vindicate Guthrie’s perception, or serve to correct it. Either way,
the answer lies in moving ahead.
Michael A. RUDOLPH
108 Bonterra Dr.
Youngsville, NC 27596
USA
rudolphma@hotmail.com