One of the constant challenges of exegesis involves the understanding of words. Most Bible readers are dependent on translations and so must be content interpreting the text based on what words their translation has chosen. Even comparing translations or consulting commentaries can sometimes fall short of answering questions that might occur.
What perhaps is not often recognized is that even translators work with significant limitations. No ancient lexicon exists that offers explanations of the meanings of words by those who spoke classical Hebrew. We have traditions, and sometimes ancient ones, such as the translation offered in the Greek Septuagint. We have comments made by Medieval Rabbinic grammarians whose expertise was substantial. And, of course, we have the multitude of translations that exist today as an outpouring of scholarly attention. With all of that said, the fact is that we only perceive the meanings of Hebrew words by their usage—not from some ancient academic repository of lexicography.
Even when modern translators do their work, they do not have the luxury of “starting from scratch” and doing thorough, comprehensive lexical study on each word. Unless there is some known discussion about the meaning of a word or some substantial disagreement or variation in the traditions, a word is unlikely to merit attention and the standard translation of the word will be followed.
As I teach in Hebrew Exegesis classes semester by semester and assign word studies and have classroom discussions, it is not unusual for questions to arise concerning a precise nuance of a word. This often leads to reconsideration of some nuances that have rarely been studied with the same inquiries in mind.
For example, a student recently raised a question concerning the precise nuance of the verb nš’ used in Genesis 3:13: Where Eve says, “The serpent deceived me and I ate.” The question was, does this verb give any indication about the type of deception involved. It is not a question that I had previously asked, but, of course, there are numerous possible nuances regarding the nature of a deception:
- Intentional deception with malicious intent
- Intentional deception with playful intent
- Subconscious deception based on misinterpretation or perhaps non-verbal communication
- Deception that only is so-revealed after the fact
- Deception in the mind of a third party observer
Others probably could be listed, but the point is that answering this question could have a significant impact on the interpretation of the passage. It is theoretically possible that the Hebrew word is fairly generic and could cover all of these. But perhaps not, and we don’t know until we check. How does one go about this research?
