The Semantics of Biblical Language by James Barr
Essentials in Biblical Theology Series
The Semantics of Biblical Language by James Barr[1]
As an academic discipline, biblical theology (BT) has not remained static over the course of its history. On the contrary, BT has undergone a number of changes and evolutions since it first emerged as a distinct field of study. In particular, the arguments, hypotheses, and investigations of biblical scholars have had and continue to have a shaping influence on the development of BT. And James Barr’s book, The Semantics of Biblical Language, stands as perhaps the greatest singular example of a work of scholarship that altered the discipline of BT.[2]
In The Semantics of Biblical Language, James Barr (1924–2006) takes aim at the ways in which biblical theologians had been employing (pseudo-)linguistics to lend credence to their theological argumentation. According to Barr, the field of BT at the time was characterized by two points of emphasis: first, BT stressed that the Hebrew mindset differed fundamentally from that of the ancient Greeks (and modern-day Europeans), and second, BT was fixated on the Bible’s unity which was thought to extend to the very languages and conceptual world of both Testaments (5).[3] These two features of BT gave rise to a number of arguments related to linguistics that Barr finds wanting (6).
Barr begins by focusing his attention on the widely held notion that the Hebrew and Greek mindsets were diametrically opposed to one another. Barr does not intend to test the validity of this idea itself; instead, he objects to the claim that certain features of the Hebrew and Greek languages were traceable to differences between the Hebrew and Greek mindsets (14). In Barr’s estimation, the attempt to “relate theological thought to biblical language” had been undertaken in a manner that was thoroughly “unsystematic and haphazard” (21). Barr complains that the scholars who presumed this connection between thought and language were unfamiliar with the field of general linguistics and had done little to test the soundness of this hypothesis (21, 24–26). Moreover, theologians had (mis)interpreted the linguistic evidence to fit the presupposed “reality” of a distinct Hebrew mindset rather than testing the theory of the thought-language connection by carefully attending to the evidence (22–23).[4] And after examining a number of claims made by scholars who asserted or assumed the thought-language connection, Barr concludes that this entire conception of language simply cannot hold up under scrutiny (42).
After having discussed the problem of the thought-language hypothesis in general, Barr goes on to tackle some specific manifestations of this theory. First, he seeks to dismantle arguments that had been made to prove that the Hebrew and Greek verbal systems reflected the differences between the Hebrew and Greek mindsets.[5] Here, Barr demonstrates that the Hebrew verbal system is not as distinct as some scholars had assumed (50–51, 74), and that many assertions made regarding the Hebrew verb were based on poor argumentation and little-to-no evidence (55, 69, 75–81). Barr then transitions from the verbal system to address other mishandled features of the Hebrew language. Specifically, he critiques contemporary psycho-linguistic claims related to the construct state (89–92), Hebrew numerals (96–100), and lexical roots (100–3).[6]
Having demonstrated the inadequacies of a number of arguments that attempted to relate the Hebrew mindset to the Hebrew language, Barr then describes at length the many problematic ways that theologians used etymologies. He notes that etymology is “a historical study” that is “concerned with the derivation of words from previous forms” (107). Barr then stresses that etymology “is not, and does not profess to be, a guide to the semantic value of words in their current usage” (107). Unfortunately, theologians have often misunderstood the nature and value of etymologies, wielding them as tools to determine the meaning of words.[7] Barr provides a number of examples of Hebrew and Greek words that have been interpreted fancifully on the basis of their alleged etymologies.[8] He then argues that this practice is deleterious because “if these arguments have any validity in them at all, you can make the scripture mean anything you like at all” (138). Thus, Barr concludes that “a crassly arbitrary method can be avoided only when it is accepted that etymological statements are historical and not authoritative and that semantic statements must be based on the social linguistic consciousness related to usage” (159).
In subsequent chapters, Barr shows the prevalence and perniciousness of many of the faulty arguments he has already addressed. He does so first by examining a number of dubious claims that were being made by theologians (especially A. G. Herbert and T. F. Torrance) regarding the concepts of faith and truth. Here, Barr observes how certain scholars had inappropriately treated theological judgments as though they were determinative for the semantic value of particular words (162–63, 177, 180, 188–91, 194).[9] Additionally, he shows that a number of proposals regarding the nature of faith and truth were rooted in a misunderstanding of the proper function of etymological investigation (165–67, 171, 175, 180, 187, 198). Then, Barr fixes his attention on Kittel’s Theological Dictionary, noting a number of errors and problems that were due to a poor grasp of linguistic theory. He posits that the dictionary was flawed on a conceptual level since the project proceeded on the basis of a confusion between concepts and words (207). This confusion was then borne out in “the habit of writers of saying ‘concept’ (Begriff) for the linguistic entity usually called a word” (210). Moreover, this confusion of words and concepts led to other lamentable errors such as (1) the identification of the semantic value of a word with that of other words used to describe the same concept (“illegitimate identity transfer”; 217–18), and (2) the idea that a word’s cumulative usage is what determines its meaning in any particular instance (“illegitimate totality transfer”; 218).
Finally, Barr draws his study to a close in two chapters that examine the relationship between linguistics and BT. He opens by making the following crucial observation:
The connection between [biblical language and theology] must be made in the first place at the level of the larger linguistic complexes such as the sentences. It is the sentence … which is the linguistic bearer of the usual theological statement, not the word (the lexical unit) or the morphological and syntactical connection (263).
According to Barr, the neglect of this principle has led many biblical theologians to speak as though biblical Hebrew was, for all intents and purposes, untranslatable (264–65). After all, if the theological perspective of the ancient Israelites was embedded in the lexical stock and the grammar of biblical Hebrew, then all attempts at translation could not help but be distorting.[10] However, Barr is much more optimistic about the possibility of faithfully translating the OT because “the linguistic bearer of the theological statement is usually the sentence and the still larger literary complex” (269). Barr then attempts to explain why BT has been so keen to account for the distinctiveness of the biblical worldview through recourse to half-baked theories regarding the uniqueness of biblical Hebrew. In his view, the real culprit was BT’s synthetic approach to the biblical texts which developed as a response to modern approaches that tended towards the fragmentation of the Bible (270, 274). Barr does not go so far as to suggest that the synthetic approach must be abandoned altogether; instead, he contends that “if this approach is continued it must be adequately guarded against the misinterpretations of language which, I suggest, have been encouraged by it” (275). And, in Barr’s view, the only way to prevent these kinds of errors from creeping into BT is for biblical theologians to become well-acquainted with the principles and findings of general linguistics (296).
In his review of Semantics, Brevard Childs noted that Barr’s book helped bring an end to a phase of biblical research as it “[did] much to dispel the easy atmosphere in which biblical theology became the stamping grounds for a thoroughly undisciplined use of language, often to support preconceived ideas of the Bible.”[11] Though the book was not universally praised by biblical theologians,[12] its impact on the field was both undeniable and generally salutary.[13] Barr provided a needed and devastating critique of unsound ideas and poor methodologies that had become somewhat accepted within the discipline. Moreover, he effectively championed the value of linguistics for the practice of BT. And, through the work of others who built on the foundation he laid,[14] Barr’s ideas influenced later evangelical scholars who would seek to approach the task of BT in a more methodologically responsible manner.
Despite the strengths of the book, evangelicals must be wary of some of Barr’s own suggestions and presuppositions.[15] In particular, Barr’s suspicion toward “synthetic approaches” to the Bible should not be received warmly by those who affirm the Scripture’s inspiration and authority. Far from making impositions upon the text, synthetic approaches take seriously the claims made by various biblical authors regarding the fundamental unity of the Scriptures. Moreover, as Barr himself notes (or at least implies), it is possible to explore the unity of the Bible without committing the kinds of linguistic errors that he so trenchantly attacks (275). While evangelical biblical theologians must be careful not to smother the diversity that does exist within the Bible, they should nevertheless seek to interpret such diversity in light of the Scripture’s unified witness to Christ.
Though over sixty years old, Semantics should continue to be read and heeded by evangelicals today. The mistakes Barr exposes are far from being relics of the past; instead, they remain traps that serious students of Scripture can continue to fall into. Furthermore, while its specific focus has to do with the intersection of language and biblical studies, evangelical biblical theologians may learn some general lessons from the book as well. For instance, evangelicals would do well to remember that ideas and methods can be widely accepted and wrong at the same time. As such, we should be wary of simply embracing the latest fads that sweep through the guild. Moreover, the book serves as a reminder that good scholarship can make an impact on an entire field of study. Thus, Semantics should provide evangelical biblical theologians with reasons to be optimistic about their work since it demonstrates that careful, well-reasoned scholarship can in fact elevate the study and practice of BT.
Richard M. Blaylock
Center for Evangelical Biblical Theology (January 2026)
TL;DR
James Barr’s The Semantics of Biblical Language made an undeniable contribution to the field of BT, as it changed the way that theologians engaged in the task of studying the theological message of the Bible.
Barr’s goal in writing the book was to criticize a number of linguistic methods that had gained acceptance among biblical theologians; among other things, he exposed the vacuity of the theory that the biblical (Hebrew) mindset was embedded within the lexical stock and syntactical features of the Hebrew language itself.
Barr noted examples of a variety of linguistic errors that had been committed by prominent theologians; these included errors such as “the root fallacy,” “illegitimate identity transfer,” and “illegitimate totality transfer.”
Barr rightly pointed out that theological ideas and worldviews are expressed at the level of sentences rather than words; as such, biblical theologians should refrain from overemphasizing the theological significance of individual words and should instead focus their attention on exploring what the biblical authors are trying to say with the words that they use.
Evangelicals should continue to read and benefit from Semantics; though they should not embrace his skepticism toward synthetic approaches to BT, they should nevertheless heed Barr’s call to adopt a more linguistically responsible approach to the study of the Bible.
[1] James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2004). The book was originally published by Oxford University Press in 1961.
[2] H. G. M. Williamson writes of Barr that he was “one of those few academics to whom it is given to write a book that changes the way a whole discipline is pursued. The fact that the discipline was biblical theology and that the book [i.e., Semantics] was only the first of many brings the scale of his achievements into even sharper focus.” See H. G. M. Williamson, “Obituary: James Barr,” The Guardian, November 8, 2006, https://www.theguardian.com/news/2006/nov/08/guardianobituaries.obituaries1.
[3] So Barr writes, “This unity is said to lie not only in the rather formal old-fashioned way of prediction of the New Testament events in the Old, or in the foreshadowing of the New by certain patterns of life and worship in the Old, or in the discernment of a historical continuum through the Old Testament history and down into the New, but in a common way of thinking, a common cast of mind and mould of expression, which operates throughout the Bible and which is more noticeable and influential than the variations which it of course undergoes in the minds of individual authors and traditions” (9). As this quote indicates, Barr observes that biblical theologians routinely argued that the NT authors were also shaped by the Hebrew mindset.
[4] So, Barr states, “We see here how much the theological viewpoint is dominated by theory. You know how distinctive the Hebrew mind is, and surely all this distinctiveness in concepts and in thought must somehow be manifested in the linguistic phenomena” (22; italics original).
[5] These include claims that Hebrew verbs manifest the dynamic character of the Hebrew mindset (50), that stative verbs in Hebrew give expression to “a condition in flux” (55), that the Hebrew language has no capacity to refer to the concept of mere existence (58), and that the Hebrew verbal system bears witness to the Israelites’ unique understanding of time (72). In my view, Barr effectively and persuasively rebuts each of these positions.
[6] It is in his discussion of lexical roots that Barr coins the now famous term, “the root fallacy.” By this term, Barr refers to the (mistaken) belief that “in Hebrew there is a ‘root meaning’ which is effective throughout all the variations given to the root by affixes and formative elements, and that therefore the ‘root meaning’ can confidently be taken to be part of the actual semantic value of any word or form which can be assigned to an identifiable root; and likewise that any word may be taken to give some kind of suggestion of other words formed from the same root” (100).
[7] Barr does understand that etymologies may contribute to our understanding of a word’s meaning. In particular, they can be of help in determining the meaning of words that occur rarely; however, even here, Barr notes that etymologies must be employed “with the utmost reserve” (158).
[8] So, for instance, Barr criticizes the claims of T. F. Torrance regarding the Hebrew word דָּבָר (“word”). According to Torrance, דָּבָר is related to a Hebrew root meaning “backside” or “hinterground”; as such, it has a “dual significance” as it refers to “the hinterground of meaning” and “the dynamic event in which [the] inner reality becomes manifest” (129–30). Barr complains that this interpretation of דָּבָר is exceedingly detached from the actual usage of the word in biblical Hebrew (131).
[9] To provide just one example, Barr criticizes Herbert for claiming that the Hebrew word אֱמוּנָה (“faithfulness”) “applies properly to God and not to man” (162). But a quick examination of the occurrences of אֱמוּנָה in the OT shows that it was in fact used to describe men (ex. 2 Kings 12:16; 22:7). Barr also asserts that Herbert’s argument proceeds from “an illegitimate confusion of theological and linguistic methods” (163).
[10] As Barr notes, “the problem arises because of the false emphasis on the morphological-syntactical mechanisms of Hebrew and on the distribution of its lexical stock” (265).
[11] Brevard S. Childs, review of The Semantics of Biblical Language, by James Barr, JBL 80 (1961): 374.
[12] G. Ernest Wright criticized Barr for failing to provide enough positive solutions to the problems he raised, and for betraying what he believed was a simplistic view of the task of translation. See G. Ernest Wright, review of The Semantics of Biblical Language, by James Barr, Union Seminary Quarterly Review 17 (1962): 350–53.
[13] For an analysis of the impact of Barr’s work, as well as a description of advances within the field of linguistics, see Carsten Ziegert, “Beyond Barr – Biblical Hebrew Semantics at Its Crossroads,” EJT 30, no. 1 (2021): 19–36.
[14] For example, see D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996); Moisés Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983).
[15] Ziegert argues that Barr’s own approach to linguistics has become outdated and that biblical scholars should acquaint themselves with the findings of cognitive linguistics. See “Beyond Barr,” 33–34.
