Grasping the Conceptual Meaning of the Biblical Text: A Cognitive Analysis of ידע.
Keywords:
Cognitive linguistics, Theological knowledge formation, Hebrew BibleAbstract
The problem of meaning is central to biblical hermeneutics. As the meaning of individual passages is profiled against the tapestry of the biblical conceptual framework, the reader needs to move beyond the traditional separation between semantics and pragmatics to grasp the meaning of a text. Cognitive linguistics offers the means to connect the conceptualframework of the Bible with the conceptual framework of the contemporary reader. The present study evinces the usefulness of such an approach by analyzing the conceptualization of theological knowledge formation as reflected by the linguistic unit ידע , “to know” in the Hebrew Bible. After introducing cognitive linguistics and its application in biblical studies, the cognitive analysis follows four steps to outline the schematic meaning of knowing god. The linguistic unit analyzed here conceptualizes the embodied human awareness of the divine realm by acquaintance with divine revelatory actions, ccording to a prototypical scenario. The study concludes with several epistemological implications that outline a minimal model of theological knowledge formation in the Hebrew Bible.Downloads
References
According to Thiselton, meaning arises in the fusion of two horizons, that of the text and that
of the reader. As he himself recognizes (Anthony C. Thiselton, Thiselton on Hermeneutics: The
Collected Works and New Essays of Anthony Thiselton [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006], 11),
Thiselton first talks about engagement of horizons in The Two Horizons: New Testament Hermeneutics
and Philosophical Description with Special Reference to Heidegger, Bultmann, Gadamer
and Wittgenstein (Exter: Paternoster, 1980) and later about mutual transformation (Anthony
C. Thiselton, New Horizons in Hermeneutics: The Theory and Practice of Transforming Biblical
Reading, rev. ed. [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992]). Thus, the meaning emerges when
the reader is transformed according to the text, and when the text is placed in new contexts.
For details, see ibid., 35–38.
In the traditional account of meaning formation, the meaning of words and sentences is context-
independent, and pertains to semantics, while the context-dependent meaning is explored
under pragmatics. The context-independent meaning is understood as “something abstract,
propositional, and symbolic”, which “can be true or false in reference to the current state of
affairs actually existing in the world”. Tim Rohrer, “Embodiment and Experientialism”, in The
Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, ed. Dirk Geeraerts and Hubert Cuyckens (New York:
Oxford University Press, 2007), 25. The context-independent meanings of words are related
using grammatical rules to build meaning. In this account, semantics refer to “an observationally
accurate account of these ‘elements of meaning’ (associated with words or a single word),
and the ‘rules of combination’ (resulting in a sentence)”. Vyvyan Evans, How Words Mean:
Lexical Concepts, Cognitive Models and Meaning Construction (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2009), 5. This account distinguishes between the compositional meaning of a sentence
(sentence meaning), and what is implicated by using the same sentence (speaker meaning).
The latter aspect is studied under pragmatics (ibid., 6–8).
John C. Peckham, Canonical Theology: The Biblical Canon, Sola Scriptura and Theological Method
(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2016), 257.
Michael D. Rasmussen, Conceptualizing Distress in Psalms: A Form-Critical and Cognitive
Semantic Study of the צרר Word Group (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2018), 10.
Ronald W. Langacker, Essentials of Cognitive Grammar (New York: Oxford University Press,
, 43.
Nicole L. Tilford, Sensing World, Sensing Wisdom: The Cognitive Foundation of Biblical Metaphors,
Ancient Israel and its Literature, 31 (Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2017), 11.
As Vyvyan Evans, Benjamin K. Bergen and Jörg Zinken indicate, an important part of a cognitive
linguistic approach is “investigating the relationship between experience, the conceptual
system, and the semantic structure encoded by language”. “The Cognitive Linguistic Enterprise:
An Overview”. In The Cognitive Linguistics Reader, ed. by Vyvyan Evans, Benjamin K. Bergen
and Jörg Zinken, Advances in Cognitive Linguistics (London: Equinox, 2007), 5.
Knowledge representation forms the conceptual structure, while meaning construction refers to
conceptualization (ibid., 5).
Ibid. “To take a cognitive approach to semantics”, write Evans and Green, “is to attempt to
understand how this linguistic system relates to the conceptual system, which in turn relates
to embodied experience. The concerns of cognitive semantics and cognitive (approaches to)
grammar are thus complementary”. Vyvyan Evans and Melanie Green, Cognitive Linguistics:
An Introduction (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2006), 49.
Evans, Bergen and Zinken, “The Cognitive Linguistic Enterprise”, 21.
Evans and Green, Cognitive Linguistics, 27.
Ibid., 28
Evans, Bergen and Zinken, “The Cognitive Linguistic Enterprise”, 5–6.
Evans and Green, Cognitive Linguistics, 46. Dirk Geeraerts and Hubert Cuyckens agree, pointing
out that “the conceptualizations that are expressed in the language have an experiential basis,
that is, they link up with the way in which human beings experience reality, both culturally
and physiologically”. “Introducing Cognitive Linguistics”. In The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive
Linguistics, ed. by Dirk Geeraerts and Hubert Cuyckens (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 14. This is called the embodiment hypothesis, defined as “the claim that human physical,
cognitive, and social embodiment ground our conceptual and linguistic systems”. Tim Rohrer, “Embodiment
and Experientialism”. In The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by Dirk
Geeraerts and Hubert Cuyckens (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 27 (emphasis in
original).
Evans and Green, Cognitive Linguistics, 48. Borrowing George Lakoff and Mark Johnson’s
description of this view as “experiential realism”, Evans and Green note that this “experiential
realism acknowledges that there is an external reality that is reflected by concepts and by language.
However, this reality is mediated by our uniquely human experience which constrains
the nature of this reality ‘for us’” (ibid.).
Ellen van Wolde, Reframing Biblical Studies: When Language and Text Meet Culture, Cognition
and Context (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 27–28.
Geeraerts and Cuyckens, “Introducing Cognitive Linguistics”, 5. The cognitive approach is thus
different from the generative approach, which considers not the knowledge through language,
but the knowledge of language, assuming that the “the genetic endowment of human beings that
enables them to learn the language” (ibid., 6).
Langacker, Essentials of Cognitive Grammar, 15. In Wolde’s words: “A linguistic unit is, therefore,
a symbolic structure in which two components, a semantic structure and a phonological
structure, are related to each other, and this structure has become established through the frequency
of successful use”. Reframing Biblical Studies, 35.
Wolde, Reframing Biblical Studies, 35. For clarification, Wolde uses the example of house, as a
schematic type. “In the process of coding”, she writes, “the language unit T [schematic type]
can be applied in a particular set of circumstances and this instantiation is mediated by the
prototypical representation of this schema. When used in Texas, the symbolic unit or schematic
type [[house] / [haωz]] would prototypically designate a house built of timber, in Europe it would prototypically designate a house built of bricks, and in Mali (the Dogun people) it would
prototypically designate a house built of mud and reeds” (ibid., 36).
Langacker, Essentials of Cognitive Grammar, 43. Therefore, according to Leonard Talmy: “Conceptual
content is understood to encompass not just ideational content but any experiential
content, including affect and perception”. Concept Structuring Systems, Toward a Cognitive
Semantics vol 1 (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2000), 4. In the same line, Vyvyan Evans distinguishes
between symbolic units and cognitive models. A symbolic unit consists of a lexical concept
and a word which functions as a vehicle. The cognitive model is “a large-scale coherent body of
non-linguistic knowledge which lexical concepts provide access sites to”. How Words Mean: Lexical
Concepts, Cognitive Models and Meaning Construction (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
, 74.
Talmy explains the cognitive representation as a “particular kind of experiential complex”.
For details, see Talmy, Concept Structuring Systems, 21.
Wolde, Reframing Biblical Studies, 24–25.
These categories are distinguished prototypically. For example, the category bird reflects certain
salient prototypes (e.g. robin, sparrow, dove) which are distinguished by fuzzy borders from
members of other categories (e.g. bats), who share a small number of attributes (e.g. flying).
For this and other examples, with a detailed explanation, see Friedrich Ungerer and Hans-Jörg
Schmid, An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics, 2nd ed. (Harlow, UK: Pearson, 2006), 7–33.
Regarding typographical conventions, I follow here Ungerer and Schmid (ibid., ix). Hence, the
cognitive categories and concepts are indicated with small capitals (e.g. bird). Domains are
written in small capitals in brackets (e.g. [land]). To these, I am adding the conventions for
profiles (trajectors), which are placed within backslashes written in small capitals (e.g. feather),
for bases (landmarks), which are written in small capitals within slashes (e.g. /bird/)
and for the profiled relation, which is written in small capitals within vertical bars (e.g. |location|).
The lexemes are indicated with italics in English (e.g. feathers), but not in Hebrew
or Greek, where the regular typeface is kept. Phrases or sentences offered as examples are also
written with italics.
Charles J. Fillmore, “Frame Semantics”. In Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings, ed. by Dirk
Geeraerts, Cognitive Linguistics Research 34 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006), 381–82. The semantic
domain reflects an encyclopedia-type of cultural knowledge of one’s reality. John I. Saeed, Semantics,
th ed. (Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2016), 35.
Langacker, Essentials of Cognitive Grammar, 44. Langacker writes that “[a]n expression is said to
invoke a set of cognitive domains as the basis for its meaning” (ibid.). In more specific terms, a
profile-base relationship is conceptualized against a domain matrix. Taylor, Cognitive Grammar,
Taylor, Cognitive Grammar, 194. See also William Croft and D. Alan Cruse, Cognitive Linguistics
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 15. For more on focus, profile, and base,
see Langacker, Essentials of Cognitive Grammar, 66. A base is distinguished from a domain. In
Taylor’s words, a base “is the conceptual content that is inherently, intrinsically, and obligatory
invoked by the expression” (e.g., |bird|). A domain “is a more generalized ‘background’ knowledge
configuration against which conceptualization is achieved” (e.g. [land]). Taylor continues,
stating that, while there is no clear-cut distinction between the two, “the distinction has to
do with how intrinsic the broader conceptualization is to the semantic unit, how immediately
relevant it is, and to what extent aspects of the broader conceptualization are specifically elaborated”.
Taylor, Cognitive Grammar, 195.
According to Langacker, “An expression can profile either a thing or a relationship”. Langacker,
Essentials of Cognitive Grammar, 67.
Although the example used here is different, it follows Taylor’s. The terminology is borrowed
from him. See Taylor, Cognitive Grammar, 205–08. Taylor explains that the trajector and the
landmark “are present schematically within the preposition’s profile” as “the preposition will
need to co-occur with expressions which give conceptual substance” to the trajector and its
landmark (ibid., 206).
Ibid., 217–18. A simple relation is profiled by the lexeme above in The branch above the lake.
Ibid., 216–17.
Taylor, Cognitive Grammar, 216. An atemporal relation can be simple or complex. A simple
atemporal relation indicates “a single consistent configuration”, as opposed to a complex atemporal
relation, which points to a “multiple consistent configuration”. Wolde, Reframing Biblical
Studies, 111. For temporal relations, stative verbs indicate a simple temporal profile, while dynamic
verbs signal a “temporal process that involves a change over time” (ibid.). For an overview
of the relational profiles associated with world classes, see Taylor, Cognitive Grammar, 221–22
and Wolde, Reframing Biblical Studies, 111.
As regards biblical Hebrew, Christo H. J. van der Merwe writes that “although often a few steps
behind, developments in BH [biblical Hebrew] tend to follow trends in general linguistics”.
“An Overview of Recent Developments in the Description of Biblical Hebrew Relevant to Bible
Translation”, AcT 22.1 (2002): 231. What Merwe states about biblical Hebrew is applicable to
Greek also. For the OT, see Anne Moore, Moving Beyond Symbol and Myth: Understanding the
Kingship of God of the Hebrew Bible through Metaphor, Studies in Biblical Literature 99 (New
York: Lang, 2009); Tiana Bosman, “Biblical Hebrew Lexicology and Cognitive Semantics:
A Study of Lexemes of Affection” (PhD dissertation, Stellenbosch University, 2011); Matthew R. Schlimm, From Fratricide to Forgiveness: The Language and Ethics of Anger in Genesis, Siphrut:
Literature and Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures 7 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns,
; Wendy L. Widder, “To Teach” in Ancient Israel: A Cognitive Linguistic Study of a Biblical
Hebrew Lexical Set, vol. 456, ed. by John Barton, Reinhard G. Kratz and Markus Witte
(Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014). Michael L. Megahan, “Some Lexemes Associated with the Concept
of JOY in Biblical Hebrew: A Cognitive Linguistic Investigation” (PhD dissertation, Stellenbosch
University, 2014); Ruti Vardi, “Favor: A Construction of Affection in Biblical Hebrew”,
HS 56.1 (2015): 49–69, doi:10.1353/hbr.2015.0025; Marilyn Burton, The Semantics of Glory:
A Cognitive, Corpus-Based Approach to Hebrew Word Meaning, SSN 68 (Leiden: Brill, 2017);
Rasmussen, Distress in Psalms; Carsten Ziegert, “What Is חֶ֫סדֶ ? A Frame-Semantic Approach”,
JSOT 44.4 (2020): 711–32, doi:10.1177/0309089219862806.
See Wolde, Reframing Biblical Studies, 201–05. Her method follows Ronald Langacker’s approach
and integrates elements from John Taylor. Taylor, Cognitive Grammar. A useful synthesis
of Langacker’s system is his, Essentials of Cognitive Grammar.
Wolde, Reframing Biblical Studies, 201–202, 204.
Ibid., 202.
Langacker, Essentials of Cognitive Grammar, 15.
See Wolde, Reframing Biblical Studies, 204.
The next two steps are (6) incorporating a reconstruction of the historical development of the
unit’s conceptualization, together with a proposal for the dating of the biblical text based on
the linguistic study. (7) An analysis of ancient Near Eastern words reflecting a similar concept
may follow. Given the purpose of the present research, these steps are not necessary.
The third stage has four steps: (1) lexical analysis, (2) analysis of nominal and relational profiles,
(3) analysis of the compositional substructural correspondences, (4) construal of textual meaning.
Wolde, Reframing Biblical Studies, 205.
In agreement with Shead, this study focuses on “synchronic, intra-lingual analysis of BH [biblical
Hebrew], rather than dwelling on pre- or post-biblical development or comparative philology”.
Shead, Radical Frame Semantics, 185 (emphasis in original).
Other lexical units convey the concept knowing god (e.g., ראה , “to see”; שׁמע , “to listen”;
בקשׁ , “to discover”; אור , “to enlighten”; דעה , “to search for”; בין , “to understand”; or טעם , “to
taste”). Yet, when it comes to knowing god, ידע is prototypical.
The search was done in the text provided by the Eep Talstra Centre for Bible and Computing
(ETCBC), W. T. van Peursen, C. Sikkel, and D. Roorda, Hebrew Text Database ETCBC4b
(DANS, 2015), doi 10.17026/dans-z6y-skyh. This database, formerly known as WIVU (Werkgroep
Informatica Vrije Universiteit) uses Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, ed. by Adrian Schenker
et al., 5th ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1997). The database can be accessed at
https://shebanq.ancient-data.org/hebrew/text. The order of the biblical books and the chapter
and verse references are taken from the NRSV.
The terminology is borrowed from Francis I. Andersen and A. Dean Forbes, Biblical Hebrew
Grammar Visualized (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012).
As Wolde indicates, the relational profile indicates either an atemporal relation (when ptc or
IC are used), or a temporal relation (when stative or dynamic verbs are used). For details, see
Wolde, Reframing Biblical Studies, 130–200. As regards its aspect, being a verb of mental perception,
ידע has both stative and fientive (dynamic) traits. Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor,
An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 366.
A simple atemporal relation appears in Num 24,16; 2 Sam 12,22; Job 24,1; Ps 9,10; 36,10; 76,1;
,4; 90,11; 139,14 and Isa 51,7.
A complex atemporal relation occurs in Gen 24,21; 41,39; Exod 31,13; Deut 4,35; 8,3; 29,4;
Josh 4,24; 2 Sam 7,21; 1 Kgs 8,43b, 60; 1 Chr 17,19; 2 Chr 6,33b; 13,5; Ps 25,14; 67,2; 78,5;
,8; 145,12; Isa 12,5; 64,2; Jer 9,6.24; 16,21a; 24,7; Ezek 20,12.20; 38,16; Hos 6,3b; Joel
,14; Jonah 3,9; Mic 6,5 and Hab 2,14.
A stative temporal process appears in Exod 5,2; 6,3; 33,12; Num 22,34; Deut 11,2a; Josh 2,9;
,6; 23,14; 24,31; Judg 2,10; 14,4; 16,20; 1 Sam 2,12; 2 Kgs 2,3[2x].5[2x]; 1 Chr 28,9; 29,17;
Job 9,28; 10,13; 11,8; 18,21; 19,25; 23,3; 30,23; 36,26; 37,5.15–16; 38,5; 42,2–3; Ps 56,9;
,15; 73,22; 77,19; 78,3; 79,6; 91,14; 92,6; 95,10; 119,75.152; 135,5; 140,12; 147,20; Prov
,6; Eccl 3,14; 11,5; Isa 1,3; 40,21.28; 43,19; 45,4–5; 48,6–8; Jer 2,8; 4,22; 5,4–5; 8,7; 9,3;
,25; 31,34b; 33,3; Hos 2,8; 5,4; 8,2; 11,3; 13,4; Jonah 4,2; and Mic 4,12.
A dynamic temporal process occurs in Gen 24,14; 28,16; Exod 6,7; 7,5.17; 8,10.22; 9,14.29;
,2; 11,7; 14,4.18; 16,6; 12; 18,11.16; 29,46; 33,13[2x].16; Lev 23,43; Num 12,6; 14,34;
,5.28; 22,19; Deut 4,9.39; 7,9; 8,5; 9,3.6; 11,2b; 18,21; 29,6; 31,13; Josh 3,7.10; 4,22; 22,31;
,13; Judg 6,37; 17,13; 1 Sam 3,7; 6,9; 17,46-47; 18,28; 22,3; 2 Sam 5,12; 1 Kgs 8,43a; 17,24;
,36–37; 20,13.28; 2 Kgs 5,15; 10,10; 19,19; 1 Chr 14,2; 16,8; 2 Chr 6,33a; 12,8; 25,16;
,13; Neh 6,16; 9,14; Job 10,2; 11,6; 19,6; 23,5; Ps 4,3; 9,16; 16,11; 20,6; 25,4; 39,4[2x];
,11; 46,10; 48,3; 51,6; 59,13; 77,14; 78,6; 81,5; 83,18; 89,1; 90,12; 98,2; 100,3; 103,7; 105,1;
,27; 119,79.125; 143,8; Eccl 11,9; Isa 5,5.19; 12,4; 19,12.21[2x]; 33,13; 37,20; 38,19; 41,20; 43,10; 45,3.6; 49,23.26; 52,6; 60,16; 66,14; Jer 2,19; 11,18[2x]; 16,21bc; 28,9; 34a;
,8; 44,29; Ezek 5,13; 6,7.10.13–14; 7,4.9.27; 11,10.12; 12,15–16.20; 13,9.14.21.23; 14,8.23;
,7; 16,62; 17,21.24; 20,5.9.11.26.38.42.44; 21,5; 22,16.22; 23,49; 24,24.27; 25,5.7.11.14.17;
,6; 28,22–24.26; 29,6.9.16.21; 30,8.19.25–26; 32,15; 33,29; 34,27.30; 35,4.9.11–12.15;
,11.23.32.36.38; 37,6.13–14.28; 38,23[2x]; 39,6–7[2x].22.28; Hos 2,20; 5,9; 6,3a; Joel 2,27;
,17; Hab 3,2; Zech 2,9.11; 4,9; 6,15; 11,11 and Mal 2,4.
See, for example, Ludwig Koehler et al., The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament,
trans. Mervyn E. J. Richardson (Leiden: Brill, 2000), s. v. “ ידע I” (henceforward HALOT);
David J. A. Clines, ed., Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, 9 vols. (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix,
–2016), s. v. “ ידע I” (henceforward DCH); W. Schottroff, “ ידע ”. In Theological Lexicon of
the Old Testament, ed. by Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann, trans. by Mark E. Biddle, 3 vols.
(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997), 2:508–21 (henceforward TLOT); and G. Johannes
Botterweck and Jan Bergman, “ ידַָע ”. In Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. by
G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, trans. by John T. Willis
et al., 15 vols (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974–2006), 5:448–81 (henceforward TDOT).
Among the lexicons and dictionaries selected, only DCH explicitly indicates its linguistic framework
(DCH 1:14–15). The other three resources were published before cognitive linguistic began
to be used in biblical studies. As such, one cannot expect to find elements of this recent
approach in these three resources. Nevertheless, analyzing them from a cognitive linguistic
perspective is helpful in highlighting some limitations these resources have. For an useful evaluation
of the main Hebrew lexicons, see Christo H. J. van der Merwe, “Towards a Principled
Working Model for Biblical Hebrew Lexicology”, JNSL 30, no 1 (2004): 119–37.
I agree with Ziegert here, Ziegert, “What is חֶ֫סדֶ ? A Frame-Semantic Approach”, 713, that
a dictionary should provide a [prototypical] definition of the term. Contra Barr, whom
Ziegert adduces in note 10 on page 713. Barr argues that, for biblical Hebrew, a dictionary
should provide only glosses, “that is, English words that sufficiently indicate the sort of area in
which the Hebrew meaning must lie. The meaning itself, for the user of the dictionary, must remain
within the Hebrew”. James Barr, “Hebrew Lexicography: Informal Thoughts”. In Linguistics
and Biblical Hebrew, ed. by Walter R. Bodine (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 145.
Christo H. J. van der Merwe, “Lexical Meaning in Biblical Hebrew and Cognitive Semantics:
A Case Study”, Bib 87.1 (2006): 85. Two projects attempt to take into account semantic domains:
Semantics of Ancient Hebrew Database (http://www.sahd.div.ed.ac.uk) and Semantic Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew (http://semanticdictionary.org). At the time of writing this research,
neither of these two projects has an article on .ידע
See David J. A. Clines’s introduction to DCH 1:19.
Merwe, “Principled Working Model”, 124–25.
The concept of judgment which appears here as a cognitive domain is pervasive in the OT.
Hamilton considers this concept the conceptual foreground of God’s salvific activity. For an
overview, see James M. Hamilton, God’s Glory in Salvation Through Judgment (Wheaton, IL:
Crossway, 2010), 56–59.
Nahum M. Sarna notes that the plagues narrative “is a sophisticated and symmetric literary
structure” whose purpose is “to emphasize the idea that the nine plagues are not random vicissitudes
of nature; although they are natural disasters, they are the deliberate and purposeful
acts of divine will—their intent being retributive, coercive, and educative”. Exodus, JPS Torah
Commentary (Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication Society, 1991), 38.
The entire book is structured around the convictions or presumptions expressed. As David J. A.
Clines notes: “The one thing Job will not allow is that his suffering proves his guilt. To refuse to
acknowledge that presumption in the presence of these friends is a launchpad for controversy”.
Job 1–20, WBC 17 (Dallas, TX: Word, 1989), 77.
When there are different relations profiled in different verses, each verse is indicated, as here.
Clines perceptively observes that “the fact that Job ‘knows’ something does not prove it is true”.
Job 1–20, 458–59.
The |understanding of| profile entails an analogy between human and divine thinking.
Samuel E. Balentine notes: “To understand that X is like Y does not require divine revelation
of unknown information; comprehension does not require unreasoned obedience to divine
law”. “Sagacious Divine Judgment: Jeremiah’s use of Proverbs to Construct an Ethos and Ethics
of Divine Epistemology”. In The Book of Jeremiah: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation,
ed. by Jack R. Lundbom, Craig A. Evans, and Bradford A. Anderson, VTSup 178 (Leiden: Brill,
, 122. Hence, understanding what God requires is not beyond human reach.
Zimmerli study of Ezekiel’s recognition formula is unsurpassed. See Walther Zimmerli, “Knowledge
of God According to the Book of Ezekiel (1954)”. In I Am Yahweh, ed. by Walter Brueggemann,
trans. by Douglas W. Scott (Atlanta, GA: John Knox, 1982), 29–98. He points out
that this formula “frequently functions as a conclusion, is firmly anchored in the context of
prophetic speech, and is always preceded by a statement concerning a divine act” (ibid., 35).
Such formula can be seen in the broader context of theodicy, as recognition means humans
“telling God that he has been righteous in bringing disaster, in the hope that this recognition
will prompt him to reconsider his intentions for the future”. John Barton, “Historiography and
Theodicy in the Old Testament”. In Reflection and Refraction: Studies in Biblical Historiography
in Honour of A. Graeme Auld, ed. by Robert Rezetko, Timothy Henry Lim, and W. Brian Aucker,
VTSup 113 (Leiden: Brill, 2007, 32–33.
According to Peter J. Gentry and Stephen J. Wellum, the concept of covenant and especially
“the progression of the covenants forms the backbone of Scripture’s metanarrative, the relational
reality that moves history forward according to God’s design and final plan for humanity and
all creation, and unless we ‘put together’ the covenants correctly, we will not discern accurately
‘the whole counsel of God’ (Acts 20:27)”. Kingdom Through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological
Understanding of the Covenants, 2nd ed. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2018), 31 (emphasis in original).
They criticize Hamilton’s focus on judgment and his perceived failure to give prominence
to the concept of the covenant (ibid., 20). It appears that the two emphases fail to consider
Gerhard F. Hasel’s relevant advice that only a “multiplex approach with the multitrack treatment
of longitudinal themes frees the biblical theologian from the notion of an artificial and forced
unilinear approach determined by a single structuring concept, whether it is covenant, communion,
kingdom of God, or something else, to which all OT testimonies, thoughts, and concepts
are made to refer or are forced to fit”. Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate,
th ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 206). As Paul R. Williamson observes, the covenant
and the judgment concepts are intertwined from the first explicit mentioning of the covenant in
the OT. “Covenant”, DOTP, 139–40.
This reflects Deuteronomy’s focus on the covenant between Yahweh and Israel. Walter Brueggemann,
Deuteronomy, AOTC (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2001), 17, which stood in
need of renewal, “not because God changed, but because each generation had to recommit itself
regularly in love and obedience to the Lord of the covenant”. Peter C. Craigie, The Book
of Deuteronomy, NICOT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1976), 37. Such recommitment entailed
“a reaffirmation of obligations laid out in the covenant of circumcision (Gen 17; cf. Deut 30:6–10) for all future generations (Deut 29:14–15) and an anticipation of the “new covenant”
that will guarantee that a divine-human relationship between Yahweh and Abraham’s “seed”
will be maintained forever (cf. Jer 31:31–34) by facilitating the important ethical obligations”
(Williamson, “Covenant”, 153).
As regards the Sabbath as the sign of the covenant with the Israelites, Zimmerli notes that “Yahweh’s
actions on behalf of his people live not only in the narrative proclamation of the people of
God, but equally in the signs Yahweh has given his people as fixed observances, observances witnessing
to his particular actions on behalf of this same people. Recognition and knowledge are revivified ever anew from the perspective of these signs and the people’s encounter with them”.
“Knowledge of God”, 70. For more on the connection between the Sabbath-sign and the reality
it symbolizes, see Sigve K. Tonstad, The Lost Meaning of the Seventh Day (Berrien Springs, MI:
Andrews University Press, 2009), 111–23.
A detailed study of the covenant lawsuit in the OT is Richard M. Davidson, “The Divine Covenant
Lawsuit Motif in Canonical Perspective”, JATS 21, no 1–2 (2010): 45–84. Davidson notes
that Israel’s unfaithfulness to the covenant with God triggers divine judgment, thus pointing to
the interconnection between covenant, judgment and covenant lawsuit (ibid., 69).
As R. K. Harrison observes, the Exodus represents the prototypical deliverance event in which
God “liberates people, not to enable them to pursue their former way of life, but that they might
be free to serve him and him alone. This concept was fundamental to the Sinai covenant and has
been an abiding principle of spirituality ever since”. “Deliverance, Deliverer”, EDT, 330.
“Warfare in the Bible is more than a sociological category, describing historical events”, notes
Tremper Longman III; “it is an important and pervasive theological theme”. “Warfare”,
NDBT, 836. The purpose of such an “Yahweh war” as Longman calls it is “the eradication of
evil and the punishment of sin” (ibid., 839). For a detailed analysis of the warfare concept in
the OT, see Barna Magyarosi, Holy War and Cosmic Conflict in the Old Testament: From the
Exodus to the Exile, Adventist Theological Society Dissertation Series 9 (Berrien Springs, MI:
Adventist Theological Society Publications, 2010).
Providence refers to divine care and, although inclusive of divine guidance, is treated as a separate
cognitive domain according to the results of the cognitive analysis of ידע . Providence entails
theological knowledge. According to Williams, it conveys three central lessons about God: his
government, character, and his purpose for human history. For details, see Stephen N. Williams,
“Providence”, NDBT, 711–13.
The cognitive domain of [praise] expresses the human reaction of thanksgiving following a
divine intervention of deliverance, restoration, or salvation. This has the character of a confessional
testimony, which cannot be reduced to mere ahistorical witness, as Brueggemann seems
to imply. Walter Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy
(Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1997), xvi–xvii. Brevard S. Childs notes: “To hear the text as witness
involves identifying Israel’s theological intention of bearing its testimony to a divine reality
which has entered into time and space”. Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theological
Reflections on the Christian Bible (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1993), 98. Consequently,
the confessional testimony is always historically-derived.
There are six cases where the knower is not specified ( Joel 2:14; Jonah 3:9; Hab 3:2; Ps 48:3; Ps
:19; Jer 28:9).
Hence, Jens Allwood notes: “No attempt is made to distinguish between lexical and encyclopedic
information in terms of the kind of information that is contained in the meaning potential”.
“Meaning Potentials and Context: Some Consequences for the Analysis of Variation in Meaning”.
In Cognitive Approaches to Lexical Semantics, ed. by Hubert Cuyckens, René Dirven, and
John R. Taylor, Cognitive Linguistics Research 23 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003), 43.
In Wolde’s example, a singular relational profile represents the meaning of the chosen term.
Reframing Biblical Studies, 258. Widder’s case is similar to the one present in this study, hence
she presents a synthesis of her chosen term’s meaning potential. “To Teach”, 159.
I am following Wolde’s formulation here, although the data is different. See Wolde, Reframing
Biblical Studies, 264.
When talking about the recognition formula in Ezekiel, Zimmerli insightfully notes that the
knowledge prompted by the recognition formula “always takes place within the context of a very
concrete history, a history embodied in concrete emissaries and coming to resolution in them”. Zimmerli, “Knowledge of God”, 63. As a result of such revelation, the knower is not “able to turn
away with this knowledge into an ahistorical awareness or into a spiritual sphere that transcends
the historical. Rather, precisely this recognition of Yahweh vis à vis the historical encounter will
hold the person fast” (ibid., 89–90).
Figure 2 is adapted from Wolde, Reframing Biblical Studies, 111, 267.
In Wolde’s view, a stative verb “profile[s] a relation that is construed as unchanged throughout
the duration of the profiled time segment. The profile of these relations, therefore, consists of a
single configuration”. Wolde, Reframing Biblical Studies, 171.
“Thus”, notes Wolde, “the infinitive construct has a relational profile and scans a relation in
summary rather than in sequential fashion” (ibid., 151).
As Wolde indicates, the participle “profiles the continuation over time of a stable relation
and construes a situation both as internally homogeneous and as progressive or still ongoing”
(ibid., 149).
The description of these four elements is adapted from ibid., 357–60.
As regards the notions of perspective and prominence, the profile-base can also be described as a
trajector-landmark relation, wherein the trajector is the profile which has a primary focus, while
the base is the landmark that has a secondary focus.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 DavarLogos
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
