Recently I've been reading Norman Perrin's Jesus and the Language of the Kingdom. His material on symbolic language is what drew me to his work. I'm not convinced by his designation of "steno" and "tensive" symbols, though. According to the authorities, a steno symbol is one that is static, and its meaning does not change. A tensive symbol is dynamic, and the meaning of the symbol may change over time or in usage.
It seems that such a distinct breakdown is unrealistic, not to mention anachronistic for the first century, as Witherington notes. Language is inherently fluid, and when the meanings of regular words are subverted for rhetorical impact or just for fun, symbols are even more subject to subversion, because a symbol is so much more profound than a description or synonym. A symbol may hold a set meaning until a gifted orator subverts its meaning for his own agenda, or until political, social, or even natural events cause a shift in emphasis and, over time, meaning.
However, a valuable contribution Perrin has made is that he has recognized--and drawn attention to--the dynamic nature of symbols (though he would admit to only certain symbols changing). Their ability and, I think, their tendency to change has implications, then, on how we approach symbolic language and even on how we interpret the author's message and intent.
Practically speaking, this means that the individual contexts in which a symbol is used should have a significant role in determining the meaning of the symbol, in tracing the author's argument through his development of the symbol, and in discussing the impact of the text (how the audience would perceive it). The context in which the author uses the symbol reveals a lot about the message he is trying to communicate--both in the specific instance and throughout the text--which in turn reveals a lot about the author's view of reality and his theology, and opens new venues for considering the author's purpose and rhetorical strategy.
For example, Ezekiel's use of Temple imagery, or Jeremiah's use of covenant, Paul's use of "Gentile" or "Israel" . . . anybody interested?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
The anti-ba'aal symbols come to mind... God causing weather, throwing lightning bolts, etc.
ReplyDeleteI'm a little confused, though. What would be an example of a static symbol? I honestly can't think of a single one.
A good example of a steno symbol is a mathematical symbol like "pi": there is a one-to-one relationship between the symbol and its referent (in this case, a number). This comes from Philip Wheelwright's explanation, which is where Perrin found the distinction. Wheelwright's example seems to indicate, though, that steno symbols are things like mathematical operators and perhaps some words that function as titles or refer to a historical event or person. Perrin's conclusion just doesn't jive with that.
ReplyDelete