The Etymology Fallacy-
An etymological fallacy is a linguistical misconception based on the idea that the etymology of a word or phrase is its actual meaning. For example, the meaning of the word prevent may be thought to signify "to go before" based on its etymology: from the Latin prae + venire. This falsely deduced meaning is a fallacy due to the fact that it fails to take into account semantic changes over time.
Native and non-native speakers pick up the meaning from reflecting on contextual usage. In day-to-day usage, most speakers of a language will rely on the context of a word or phrase and deduce the meaning from it rather than an etymology which may, in any case, not be at all clear, particularly if it is based in a foreign or archaic language.-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy
The Root Fallacy
"Presupposes that every word actually has a meaning bound up with its shape or its
components".
Example: Nice comes from the Latin nescius, which means "ignorant"
Words should not be defined by their etymology but instead by their context and use.
Not all words are referential, a sentence cannot be analyzed into the things each word in the sentence 'names.' It follows that the meaning of words in a grammatically coherent array, as in a, is different from the theoretical referent of each word"-Dr. Fesko, Hermeneutics
The Word Study Fallacy -
Word studies are popular, easily obtained from available resources, and an easy way to procure sermon content. However, word studies are also subject to radical extrapolations and erroneous applications. It is not always possible to strike exegetical gold by extracting a word from the text for close examination. Word studies alone will not suffice. Indeed, over-occupation with word studies is a sign of laziness and ignorance involved in much of what passes for biblical exposition in our times. While we might decry over-emphasis on philology or etymology, we must recognize that the choice of individual words was significant to the writers of Scripture. It is legitimate for the exegete to ask, "Why did the writer choose this term as opposed to one of its synonyms?" Study of the words alone will not present us with a consistent interpretation or theology. This is one of the misleading aspects of theological dictionaries/wordbooks. Any linguistic aids are virtually useless apart from the author's context. -William D Barrick, Exegetical Fallacies.
Hi Craig,
John Westley Hanson once wrote...
We are aware that nothing is more unsafe and treacherous than the guidance of etymology. An ounce of usage is worth a pound of it. Etymology is theory, usage is fact.
Etymology can definitely lead one astray. Want to see a modern day etymological conundrum....look up regardless and irregardless in a modern dictionary. They mean the same thing. Had to post it since "irregardless" still bugs me, like someone needs to make the word longer to sound smarter, I dunno?
The root fallacy is all too prevalent amongst a large number of Christian Universalists. They will insist that aionios never means eternal because aion never means eternal. They will parrot such lines as this:
"Eonian, being the adjective of aion just tells us what pertains to the eon or eons as the case may be. Nothing more, nothing less. Therefore it is absolutely impossible for eonian to be greater than eon."
This is like inisting that gorgeous means "pertaining to the throat" because gorgeous is derived from the noun gorge, meaning "throat"). Silliness.
Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 26, 2009, 04:25:38 AM
The root fallacy is all too prevalent amongst a large number of Christian Universalists. They will insist that aionios never means eternal because aion never means eternal. They will parrot such lines as this:
"Eonian, being the adjective of aion just tells us what pertains to the eon or eons as the case may be. Nothing more, nothing less. Therefore it is absolutely impossible for eonian to be greater than eon."
This is like inisting that gorgeous means "pertaining to the throat" because gorgeous is derived from the noun gorge, meaning "throat"). Silliness.
Actually, to say that aionios doesn't mean everlasting because it's the adjective form of aion
isn't an etymology argument at all. Many words in English that have both a noun and an adjective form have slight variations in spelling depending on which you're using. Adjectives are modifiers rather than different words. Aionios is being used as an attributive because it's attributing a quality to the noun that it's modifying, whether you're talking about God, punishment, or life. Aionios in the controversial passages regarding UR/ET is always being used as an adjective rather than as a distinct word from aion, although extrabiblical Greek allows for other usages. In those cases then you're talking about aionios as a noun.
We pretty much know what the color green is unless we've been blind our whole lives. Green is a color. Green is a noun. However, it's an adjective when you're talking about Green grass. When you're talking about green grass have you suddenly added any meanings to the word "green?" Are you precluding grass from being any other color by referring to green grass? No. But you're not adding meaning to the word "grass" either by calling it "green." You're distinguishing an attribute of the grass. God works through the ages, and the covenants work out the ages, and in neither case can either be understood as everlasting just because aion or aionios is ever connected with them. Green isn't suddenly purple because it's used of grass or broccoli instead of talking about the green itself alone. Aion stands alone in meaning age rather than eternal or everlasting. Aionios is a modifier in the Biblical passages that are relevant to the UR/ET issue. But were aionios to be used as a noun, it would simply be a variation in spelling of aion as any dictionary will show you many words that have multiple spellings. It's not an etymology issue at all.
Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 26, 2009, 04:25:38 AM
The root fallacy is all too prevalent amongst a large number of Christian Universalists. They will insist that aionios never means eternal because aion never means eternal. They will parrot such lines as this:
"Eonian, being the adjective of aion just tells us what pertains to the eon or eons as the case may be. Nothing more, nothing less. Therefore it is absolutely impossible for eonian to be greater than eon."
This is like inisting that gorgeous means "pertaining to the throat" because gorgeous is derived from the noun gorge, meaning "throat"). Silliness.
Actually, there is a connection --because words do not come out of nowhere.
gor·geous (gôrjs)
adj.
1.
a. Dazzlingly beautiful or magnificent: wore a gorgeous Victorian gown.
b. Characterized by magnificence or virtuosic brilliance: the pianist's gorgeous technique.
2. Informal Wonderful; delightful.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Middle English gorgeouse, probably from Old French gorgias, jewelry-loving, elegant, from gorge, throat; see gorge.]So we see here the word comes from a reference to jewelry--hence the connotation of dazzling, elegant, magnificent (maybe you have to be a woman)--and where is jewelry most commonly worn? Around the neck.
Hi Martin,
Very well written post. (I just have to say tho, green DOES add to the grass as it distinguishes it from yellow grass, brown grass, etc, just a stupid point of contention, though, when you read about grass in most instances, the grass would normally assumed to be green if the adjective were NOT used).
I was so shocked when I found out how many different ways the noun aion was translated in the KJV especially. Even if aion were proven to mean eternity sometimes, given other scriptures which state that God WILL have all men to be saved, that Jesus IS the Savior of the world, that ALL men will bow before God to His glory, what reason would have translators defend to use eternity in passages relating to punishment?
Good job, Molly.
Quote from: mollyActually, there is a connection --because words do not come out of nowhere.
gor·geous (gôrjs)
adj.
1.
a. Dazzlingly beautiful or magnificent: wore a gorgeous Victorian gown.
b. Characterized by magnificence or virtuosic brilliance: the pianist's gorgeous technique.
2. Informal Wonderful; delightful.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Middle English gorgeouse, probably from Old French gorgias, jewelry-loving, elegant, from gorge, throat; see gorge.]
So we see here the word comes from a reference to jewelry--hence the connotation of dazzling, elegant, magnificent (maybe you have to be a woman)--and where is jewelry most commonly worn? Around the neck.
Absolutely, the connection is easy to see. My point, however, is simply that the modern meaning of the word
gorgeous is not contained in its root
gorge, which simply means "throat". You see what I mean?
Quote from: martinActually, to say that aionios doesn't mean everlasting because it's the adjective form of aion isn't an etymology argument at all.
To commit the etymological fallacy, or root fallacy, is to insist that the meaning of a word is neccessarily contained in its root(s). To argue that
gorgeous means "pertaining to the throat" simply because its nounal root,
gorge, means throat is an example of the root fallacy. Such is the case with aion and aionios.
Just wanted to add something to this thread. The etymological fallacy says that a words root components do not define the meaning of the word. However, don't get tripped up by the extreme, which is to say that etymology should not be considered AT ALL. I don't think anyone is saying that, but I have been in discussions where when you bring up etymology, people tend to automatically assume you are committing the root fallacy.
The use of etymology concerning ER is to counter the assumption that "aionios" CANNOT mean anything other than eternal in the "infinite time" sense of the word, or infinity. ETers make that false assumption based on word usage applied to God, where it can be shown that the etymologic meaning applied to God does no harm to His immortality and jibes with other scriptures that reveal aionios to be used according to the root "pertaining to age(s)." I won't get into how they seem to erroneously conflate the concept of timeLESSness with infinite time without justification. That's for another time.
What we are really talking about here, is not what a word means in a blanket sense, as much as what the author INTENDS the word to mean. Etymology is a first step to show that aionios does not mean "infinite" of its root, but must morph to mean that, which is natural and happens. But the question is, did the author intend the word to be used close to its etymological meaning or to its evolved meaning over time? That is how etymological study works WITH a study of usage.
Example: Penthouse
1. A penthouse is the upper floor apartment in a highrise building
2. Archaic: an outhouse or shelter built into the side of a house with a sloping roof.
We see that the modern version of penthouse is changed over time, yet there was an archaic (older) meaning that stayed closer to the etymology. Here is the etymology according to the dictionary I have:
from Middle English (pentis) which is from the Latin (appendicium - appendage), modification associated with the French pente (slope).
----------
The ETer would automatically apply the modern meaning of penthouse to old documents dealing with the archaic meaning, and would reach wrong conclusions. By understanding etymology, they could see that penthouse CAN mean something other than it's evolved meaning, AND they could then judge whether usage bears that out.
From noting the etymology we see that the older usage stays close to the root meaning while over hundreds of years it changed to the modern meaning we have today. It isn't that etymology DEFINES the word today, but that it gives us an understanding of how it evolved. So once establishing that "aionios" does not mean "infinite" according to its roots, you can then examine its archaic usage to gain insight as to whether the writers intended to use the word according to its evolved meaning or NOT.
Remember, while it's a fallacy to state that a word cannot mean something other than it's root, it is also fallacious to say that a word cannot be used ACCORDING to its root if that is what the author intends. And the best way to study usage is not in the general sense, but by deducing the opinions of the author. For example, did Paul use "aionios" as Plato would have used it or by its connection to the Hebrew scriptures which he considered inspired by God.
Did Paul use "hades" according to its etymological root of "a" and "eides" (unseen) or the EVOLVED meaning of the Hellenistic concept of an underworld populated by various Pagan gods. Since Paul considered the Hebrew Scriptures to be God inspired and we can trace "hades" to sheol which was not a Hellenistic concept, we can deduce from etymology and usage that Paul was ignoring the evolved usage of "hades" and sticking closer to its proper etymologic root meaning. It reveals a tendency by the NT writers to use Greek words in their strict sense.
That is how etymology and usage work together.