Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-cbk24 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T09:40:48.088Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Language and Theology: Some Critical Notes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 August 2011

Paul L. Holmer
Paul L. Holmer
Affiliation:
Yale University
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

There has been much talk in religious circles about the condition of theology. It is frequently charged that its language is no longer viable; and thus, if for no other reason, the theologian must seek a more contemporary idiom. Furthermore, with the need expressed over and over again for new translations of everything old, we seem to reinforce our claim that all of theology must be continually re-translated too. But words are one thing and concepts perhaps another. With the great enthusiasm today for a certain kind of linguistic study on the part of students of the Bible and with what looks like a strong growing interest in linguistic philosophy, there are bound to be a few confusions generated. These notes are intended to head them off.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 58 , Issue 3 , July 1965, pp. 241 - 261
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1965

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 The Growth and Structure of the English Language (Oxford, 1954), 41ff.

2 The above illustrations are taken from Leonard Bloomfield's chapter “Cultural Borrowing” in Language (London, 1935), esp. 455. In turn, the author gives numerous references for his examples, cf., ‘Notes’, p. 522.

3 This is the issue for Bishop Robinson in Honest to God, for Helmut Gollwitzer in Die Existenz Gottes im Bekenntnis des Glaubens (Munich, 1964), for Paul van Buren, in The Secular Meaning of the Gospel (New York, 1963) and numerous others.

4 H. H. Price, “Clarity is not Enough,” 38. Presidential address to Mind Assoc., July, 1945, reprinted in H. D. Lewis, ed., Clarity is Not Enough (London, 1963).

5 I am indebted to R. Rhees, “Can there be a Private Language?” for several suggestions here; Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, suppl. vol. 28 (1954), 77–94.